Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rom (IT), Kolosseum -- 2024 -- 0610.jpg

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

File:Rom (IT), Kolosseum -- 2024 -- 0610.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colosseum in Rome, Italy at blue hour
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me --A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very beautiful and well done. The problem is that your photo directly competes with this very similar FP which has been taken by Diliff in 2007. It’s not one of his very best photos, but still a very strong competitor with high sharpness of details. Of course there are misc. differences – your photo is more of a night view, while Diliff’s one is a blue-hour shot; Diliff’s version shows misc. persons while your one is free of them; etc. In the end I think the point of view is different enough and better in your shot – the central way leading to the entrance is a clear advantage. So we can keep Diliff’s FP as FP because of the beautiful blue hour atmosphere and the details sharpness, and feature your new photo because of the somewhat better perspective and the better lighting of the arches. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there were a few people around the Colosseum, when I was there to take some night shots. Unfortunately some of them were launching flying LED toys into the air, which caused unwanted light trails… To manage this and still capture the scene cleanly, I opted for a 15-minute long exposure. This helped me minimize the distracting elements while enhancing the lighting of the arches and overall atmosphere. Meanwhile, a police car drove past twice, but due to the long exposure time, it's not to be seen here. --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked, if he is on Commons. He showed me some photographs of one of his friends, who uses Sony, but to my shame I haven't noticed his Instagram username. If it helps, he had a Nikon Z9, which he had bought a short time earlier. Perhaps we should attach small Commons badges to our camera straps or tripods so that we can recognize each other (satire - or not). --A. Öztas 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a sock puppet (openly declared and linked as such) for a few days for some edits because I could not edit in Wikipedia via this user account due to Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the No open proxies Policy. I had already written to the steward team about this at the time. I have replaced the image because I believe that this (17 years later) image is also good and suitable. I was not aware that there is a grandfathering clause. Fortunately, this is an open project and you can undo any changes. Even if the picture is rejected by you as an FP for this reason - or do you have any comments on what I could do better in future shots, because that's what we're talking about here? I'm always trying to get better at what I do, so this would help in that regard too. By the way I don't know what you mean by "Livio/Commonists is greeting", but perhaps you could elaborate on that. --A. Öztas 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Colosseum has changed much in all this time. I consider Diliff's Photo to be superior. Usually, out of politeness, such a change is put up for debate on the article's discussion page. Wilfredor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Careless replace of pictures is exactly what the person behind accounts "Livioandronico", "Comminists", "Spartakos" etc.pp. did. We don't replace excellent pictures, unless significant update is necessary. Why don't you replace this one instead (still being used on four pages)? Again, you replace because you care about quality of Wikipedia or because it's your picture you would like to showcase? --A.Savin 05:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not that familiar with meta-discussions about other users, but that's also not the reason why I participate in Wikimedia projects. So please understand that I will not go into further detail in this regard. Regarding your actual question: I have already explained why I replaced the image. The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image. This is not about ego or the need to showcase my image, as you subtly imply, but about offering an image that I believe is equivalent and more current - even if not much changed about the Colosseum itself in that time. I am active on Wikimedia almost exclusively on Commons. Other users tend to work in different projects, some have a balanced mix. For me, it usually works like this: I publish photos on Commons for which I think a free licence would be useful, and then see whether some of them could also offer added value in articles. Unfortunately, you haven't said anything about the photo itself yet, although that's exactly what this is about here. As I've already mentioned, I'm always endeavouring to improve my photography skills and would appreciate your expert feedback. I've already said everything I need to say on the other points you've raised here and anything more would just be repetitive, which is why I consider the discussion closed for me at this point. However, if you consider it necessary, we can continue the discussion in a suitable place. --A. Öztas 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the user who has suspicions, I also made a comment to which you did not respond. In a structure like the Colosseum in Rome you don't see changes in 10, 20, 30 years but in centuries, and I continue to find the Diliff photo above. I would just like to ask you a question to be sure and close this topic, do you have any relationship with the user @Livioandronico2013: ?. Thanks for answer Wilfredor (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think this question is inappropriate, as are the "suspicions" that seem to exist. The entire discussion that has arisen here seems out of place to me overall, especially at this depth. It was triggered out of nowhere and basically has nothing to do with the photo itself - I'm so hung up on this point because it's an vote of the candidate photo; if it had been a rejection that included at least a brief review of the weaknesses of the photo itself, as I assumed I could expect according to the voting policy, I wouldn't care at all and I would know how to make a better photo like this next time, but as it is, it's - unfortunately - just unobjective and not pertinent. If it had been a simple comment, we could have met for a coffee and cake to discuss that matter at leisure and had a good laugh together. To be clear - even if it's ridiculous that I'm even commenting on this: I have no relationships with said users and this is the first I've heard of them. But anyone can say that, can't they? If there are still "suspicions" - for which I can do nothing, but which obviously affect me - you are free to submit a checkuser request to clear them up so that I am not accused of any shadows here for which I then have to justify myself. Basically, I don't care what anyone thinks about me or not, as long as things that have nothing to do with me are not made my problem - as is the case here. Perhaps that explains why I react the way I do, in case that might also be a cause for "suspicion". --A. Öztas 12:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go on a witch hunt please. This user is German (Livio was Italian), uses Sony equipment (Livio used Nikon), and has been active for ten years. There is no connection between him and Livio. His English is also very good and Livio's was not. We don't need to put people off with a climate of suspicion. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you meant any of my comments, I was stating about similar behaviour and not about sockpuppetry (Wilfredor's assumption about possible identity of A. Öztas and Livio/Commonists is quite obviously wrong, if not to say embarrassing). This makes this behaviour (careless mass replaces of pictures on Wikipedia in various languages) not less problematic, though. --A.Savin 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you. It was obvious to me that you were saying that Livio had also replaced images with his own, not that you were saying this user is the same as Livio. As you say the equation of the two is quite obviously wrong. I agree with you that the Diliff picture should not have been replaced in these articles. Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This discussion is already very long, but when you write: “The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image”, you urge me to emphasize that (as I already mentioned in my vote) the detail resolution of Diliff’s photo is clearly better. That’s quite impressive when we consider that his photo “is 17 year old”, and points out Diliff’s outstanding skills and diligence. In addition I can only second the obvious statement that the Colosseum does not change much over 17 years, thank God! – Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it Diliff's photo is a stitched panorama, not a single frame. It has probably been downsampled, which was a lot more accepted in 'early Commons', and explains why the details are so sharp. Both are very good - I actually prefer the composition in this one and the light in Diliff's - but A. Savin is right that a high quality picture shouldn't be replaced in an article, certainly not without plenty of discussion first. By all means replace low quality pictures with yours though, A. Öztas . Cmao20 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that the other photo might be a panorama. That would then also explain the difference in the height proportions of the Colosseum, which I had wondered about. --A. Öztas (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rom_(IT),_Kolosseum_--_2024_--_0610.jpg&oldid=946916619"