Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inside the Cathedral of Amelia.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Inside the Cathedral of Amelia.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 14:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Inside the Cathedral of Amelia
  • But there is no competition with David, God forbid, different churches and different instrumentation. I did not say that you have not given technical evaluations, I just said that it is best to stick to those, merci.--LivioAndronico talk 20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a bit of misunderstanding between us (english is not my mother tongue!). Of course there's no really competition. But anyone familiar with FPC will compare your shot to Diliff's and I do think David has raised the bar very, very high, so churches interiors better have to be flawless these days. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't compare the photos of different objects taken with different instruments, you have to have at least the same subject. To give an example of the basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul have a very different light and also the width is different.Is my way,and I can understand that others have a different way of seeing things.--LivioAndronico talk 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral (ec) I don't really disagree with Benh on the technical side, but I think that competition is an unfortunate term. Diliff's great work is more a "High water mark", the best of the best we have here. The question for me is: Where should we set the threshold for what is good enough. It is not an easy question and it is right that Diliff cannot photograph every church that would be deserving of it (it would be fun though... crowdfunding has worked for more absurd ideas :D). I think this is one of your better images when it comes to composition, the crop is chosen pretty well. Yet the sharpness is not ideal and while I accept your reasoning, it is an important criterion for FP. Also the post-processing could be improved, for example by trying to better match the color temperatures (the side walls look too blue), but that is quite difficult even with good programs. For me it is not quite there with the other FPs of churches, but at the same time is is close enough that I won't oppose.--DXR (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry Livio but this image shows nothing exceptional for me. Taking an FP of a church interior is so much more than placing a tripod in the center and press the button. Anybody could do that. First, you need a good, interesting lighting of the room to take an outstanding picture, and that’s what this image fails entirely IMHO. The dark blueish tone, while it might be natural, does not at all appeal to me. --Kreuzschnabel 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kreuzschnabel the sentence :"Taking an FP of a church interior is so much more than placing a tripod in the center and press the button." I don't find correct I chose the subject, also because on wikipedia this photo wasn't there and now there's already so I'm glad. I did 220 km (!), And 1 km uphill (!) (With the car could not go) with my daughter in my arms, camera and tripod. I have other photos of Featured of churches that instead it was a lot easier, but I think it is not a fair comparison here. I think these considerations are superfluous, I also see pictures that I think simple or easy but I refrain from judgments that are not photographic.If you want to make judgments technical suits me but everything else is superfluous for me.Thanx.--LivioAndronico talk 11:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I already was afraid on sending that it might be taken completely wrong. I do not blame you of anything like making too little effort. I just wanted to make the point that not any pic taken inside an overwhelming room will automatically be an overwhelming picture. As for the photographic subject, I did make some. --Kreuzschnabel 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Livio, if this is important to illustrate, maybe a Valued images candidate fits better.
FP it is the best of the best, if you just want to illustrate, and you will not take several images, bracketing, uses mirror lock up, a good tripod,... it's ok, but the result of that is not a FP, FP takes time to do.
Ok, we already see a lot of crap becoming FP by pure graft, images with dust, bad lighting, horrible compositions, ... as FP generate some "status", the result is that voting in some cases became more a collusion demonstration, then a free voting... And giving a excuse that "judgments technical" is "superfluous", plus the "family guy" card (that you really like to use) in your text, just reinforces the idea that you are not trying convince by the photo, but by politics. -- RTA 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA I think that answer to you is just a waste of time now ... --LivioAndronico talk 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't answer, you need to listen first... Alias, waste of time is to write a extensive revision to you, giving tips to improve your images, and you don't give a shit, not having the decency to say thanks. 1. -- RTA 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct RTA, nobody cares --LivioAndronico talk 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the issue then, from your point of view LivioAndronico? It's great that you travelled 220km and walked 1km uphill to reach this church. Commons will benefit from your photo - no doubt - but all the effort you take to reach the church has absolutely no bearing on what you do with your camera once you have arrived. To me, it sounded like RTA was trying to help to improve your photography but you were not interested. A number of people have been saying that with the technique and equipment you currently employ, your images have little chance of being promoted to FP because they do not stand out among other interior photography, but you don't seem to care. That's no problem, nobody can force you to do anything differently, but do you really want to keep submitting images that are rejected? Is this what makes you keep coming back to FPC? What is it you want to achieve here? I'm asking honestly. I don't think anyone takes pleasure in voting oppose, we just want to be honest and help you improve with critique and advice. Diliff (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff you have to try to follow a speech before you express yourself, I have already made clear with the proper authorities that speech and do not understand what interests you? They told me that they are just going to take a picture and I explained that it was not so simple, that's all. If my photo is declined I do not take that much, do not worry. It 'just a hobby for me is so complicated? I go around I make two pictures and go home! I do not waste too much time because I'm not a photographer and do not aspire to do so ... I do not know how to say it more clearly. You, for example, you spent a boat of money for your equipment and I have not the slightest intention of doing so. I don't understand what problem have you! In Italy they say:"Don't say what nobody asks you!".I have not asked you anything and you will obligation to help those who do not ask.Boh.... --LivioAndronico talk 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following it, and I've been unable to understand your point of view - that's why I asked you the questions above. If you are not a photographer and do not aspire to be one, why are you submitting your photos to Featured Picture Candidates? As I said, nobody can force you to do anything, and we cannot (except in extreme cases, I guess) stop you from continuing to submit them, but if we have repeatedly pointed out why your images are failing and you clearly state you do not care about our suggestions, then you must surely understand why we are starting to get frustrated. This project exists to identify the best images on Commons and you have just stated that you don't care about becoming a better photographer. Can you not see the issue here? If Commons FPC was just a gallery where you could place any image you cared to put online, then that would be great and we would have no reason to stop you, but you are actually wasting everyone's time by adding your images to the FPC project when you are not interested in FPC's goals. I'm sorry for being blunt here, but when you state that you don't care about the quality of the photography you submit here and tell me 'not to say what nobody has asked me', I think that's crossing the line and showing a blatant disregard for what we are trying to do here. Diliff (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do it as a hobby and others do not mind, it does not say on the rules that you have to be a professional and there is no one to bother my photos as you. So what do you talk? Or do what I tell you or you're out? For me this story is a waste of time. --LivioAndronico talk 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is, others are simply being polite in silence. I'm not saying your photos are terrible and I never said you had to be professional here. Your images are clearly okay, I'm only saying that based on recent voting patterns your images are not being supported as featured pictures and what I would suggest is that you continue your hobby of taking photos and uploading them to Commons but think long and hard about whether submitting your images here at FPC is really the best use of your time and ours. Perhaps you could submit only the images that you genuinely think are comparable to the best interior photography on Commons. This 'story' might be a waste of time, but as far as I'm concerned, it is a waste of time because you are refusing to take feedback offered. Diliff (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I love the kind silent --LivioAndronico talk 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.... Anyway, that will be my last comment on this nomination. I Just hope you actually consider the points we've made instead of continuing as if nothing happened. Diliff (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't but in australia but in italy the Ignorance is a bad beast....--LivioAndronico talk 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misjudge the rest of the people here. There are no professional photographer's who regularly participate at Featured Pictures. Even the most prolific and successful of our photographers like Diliff and Poco are just amateurs who have a hobby and a passion. Many of us have or had very basic DSLR and lenses but a desire to improve. Many people here will confirm that submitting images to FP has helped them become better. But all of us regard ourselves as "photographers" and are passionate about that. If you are not, if you are for example just a tourist who takes the odd photograph and does not have the inclination to take a lot of time over it, then you will not improve and participating at FP is a waste of everyone's time. If you keep saying "go away; I don't want to listen to you" to those who review negatively then ultimately the community here will ask you to leave. As others have said, FP is for the very best images. You might do better at QI if you just want to contribute good images to Commons and Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where is write from me :"go away; I don't want to listen to you"? But as you invent these things? Anyway, I already 7 featured and many friends, I do not feel so much the community against me ... only a few elements who believe that their comments are fair then when others say the opposite --LivioAndronico talk 20:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not correct RTA, nobody cares" that's one way to said that.
And this a hobby for me even taking 5h to make this File:Mamão papaia em fundo preto.jpg, and that's where your first mistake appears.
The main difference between a hard enthusiasts and a pro, after certain point, is not the result, but how long takes to do the same thing... And you can spend tons of hours making mistakes, or you can hear others that already passed through all the learning process to improve faster. Another point, you can spend three hours trying to cut a trunk with a dull axe, or can sharpen the axe in 20 min and cut down the tree in 30 min, is always your choice. ;) (well, even going to the woods spend a lot of resources, and having the material for a big trunk, you can came back with branch, because you prefer give up than try).
But as you have so many hours to spend coming here, applying for FP, get in to rage, ignore help, write about how much you suffer to take the photos, and say that the opinion of volunteers that not agree with you do not deserve respect; you have time to develop a self methodology to create better photos...
Another thing, or you are blind, or are in denying, because I see a lot of your photos not passing through the voting, or passing by "friends", so the default is say that your photos are not good enough. And no one said that the community are against you, actually the opposite we tried to help you, but we can start turn against your FP participation in reaction of your posture...
The last observation, I do not have that much of time, and even so I tried to help you, because you applied to FP and your photos was not being approved. I do not saw your recently uploads and started to criticise then... If you don't want to be judged, do not apply to FP/QI/VI, and then you can live with your happy and safety beast...
A sincerity question, what's your motivation to apply to FP? For me, i.e., is to be evaluate, and after facilitate to search a good quality image of the subject. So what's yours? -- RTA 04:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him that already, and he seemed to either ignore it except to say that he's here 'as a hobby'. But that doesn't really explain why he chooses FPC specifically and not QI, or something else that matches his level of photography. Diliff (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Inside_the_Cathedral_of_Amelia.jpg&oldid=150461052"