Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 09:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
- Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Info This photo has 3rd place in WLM 2018 in France. A bit similar to this photo, which is FP. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support But im not sure this is the best result you could get by such a scene: the right part is too bright, too much detailed and too much colourful. The central part, which is meant to be the main subject, is not as bright as the right part, which should be a secondary part in the composition. Vignetting and a slight darkening of the whole right part would be a great improvement to an already excellent composition with flaws about lightening.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment No added vignetting please! --Cart (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- A good vignetting would hide the evidently too much bright right part of the composition which is not intended to be the main subject but comes out clearer thn the subject. That right part is killing the whole photograph IMO,Paolobon140 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Paolobon, the entire right, up to the road edge, needs to be cropped out. I can understand what the photographer wanted to show us, what he saw, but it was more than the photograph could handle. But the church by itself could be featured. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The view is beautiful, but with all of that on the right of the church and nothing on the left, it feels unbalanced. The linked photo has a different kind of balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The edges catch the eye too much, being very contrasty and strongly sharpened, as well as being out of the mist. The vignette-to-focus-on-centre proposal is old already, with limited acceptability on a educational media repository and an outdoor scene. Anyway, the centre clouds are a little blown so drawing the eye towards them, and away from the church, wouldn't work. I think the image has been a bit over-processed, with a bit too much local contrast and sharpening (the woman's t-shirt has steps on the diagonal). I'll suggest a crop. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm surprised that I can nearly always recognize Tournasol7's pictures at first sight here and in QIC, just because they are heavily processed. I think you should try to keep everything (colors, saturation, contrasts, etc.) more natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- This kind of processing is the signature of the photographer and you are admitting that its his signature: it is a big result for a photographer and a big compliment to Tournasol7. Among dozen of undistinguished pictures shown here where the only problem is wether they are enough sharp or not in the very top left pixel, this kind of images are a gift becasue they show a creative signature. Photography is also made of colour processing. I would suggest you to try to cross-process some of your pics and enjoy the result. Lookf of photographs have changed a lot in the last decades and heavy colour processing is very fashionable lately. By the way, why is black and white accepted here? Black and white is a very evident colour processing.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Paolobon140, actually fashion isn't a sign of individual creativity. Following the herd to get a tattoo or beard, say, is more a sign of conformance to the group than independent thinking. Fashions come and go, and an educational media repository like Commons tends to value images that stick close to reality. Anyone can take a photograph of an Italian church interior, push the Clarity/Highlights/Shadows/Sharpness sliders around with a heavy hand, and expect folk who've never seen the church to have their eyes pop. There's a place for photos that adopt a certain style, but I wouldn't want heavy colour processing to be fashionable at Commons FP. While it might be fun to look at a movie and recognise it was colour graded in a way popular for 2018, I would prefer if the photos on Commons were timeless. Back and white works for the very reason that it doesn't make any pretence to represent the scene's colour: the viewer is not tricked. The guidelines for Commons FP require that significant post-processing be documented. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Many photographers here have developed a distinct and recognizable style. I've even seen voters refer to photos as being in "Cart style". However, almost none of these photographers have relied on effects or over-processing to achieve that style. You don't need to pull out every toy in the tool box to get a signature, it has more to do about chasing a certain light, subject, angle and composition. Btw Paolobon140, since Basile is a recognized artist, I don't think he needs to be told that he can play with colors. :-) Since you don't know the people behind the signatures here, I suggest you treat users here more like your equals than someone with their first camera. When we post photos here, we sort of try to keep them in the style of the Commons project. That doesn't mean we don't know any other styles. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This post-process is not a personal touch in my view, but more like a heavy make-up. You can put 3 kilos foundation every morning on your face to try to be beautiful, this is just artificial and spoiling your natural appearance. My comment was not a compliment. Paolobon140 fails in the interpretation. Instagram is certainly a better place to play with trendy filters to transform everything normal into magically impossible -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion above. I don't think the proposed crop would save it for me, either, as it would still be unbalanced, due to the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 03:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Neptuul (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous comment and discussion. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)