Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ship light trails, Rostock.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2021 at 10:10:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Light trails of three ships entering the Baltic Sea.
  •  Comment Thank you for your opinion. Lens flares are usually inappropriate but in this photo I think they emphasize the character of the image, they do not disturb the viewer. They were caused by light raindrops on the lens. The green light on the right side is not a lens flare but the light of a starboard buoy. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Yes, the lens flares are IMHO a bit much, although it's a nice idea and I think it deserves to be QI. Cmao20 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Two things: Whether or not we call it "technical," water on the lens that shows up in big splotches in the image is a problem. :) Also, this other FP nomination just ended. That one is missing a little bit of the detail of this one, but is otherwise IMO better. In addition to the water droplets, this one also loses the bright reflection of the lighthouse and has an extra light trail above the others. When an image doesn't get enough votes here, it's often because people have mixed feelings. This was true for me in that nomination. It was an interesting image, with interesting light effects. I was leaning "support" but the overall softness of the image made me hesitate. Before I could go back, it was closed. I imagine some other people went through similar ambivalence. Question, though: @Ikan Kekek: Why was the other one closed early. 5-day speedy close is when it only has the support of the nominator, but that one wasn't supported by the nominator; it was supported by Daniel Case. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I never make a move to close something unless the bot has already specified it as featured or not featured. If the bot made a mistake and it didn't occur to me to look for a mistake, we should reinstate that nomination for the number of days it was cheated out of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I should add that I don't know how to set that up so that the bot doesn't keep ending the time for voting on the nomination. I'd be more than happy for you to take care of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Wikimedians, thank you very much for the intensive discussion about this photo. If it were perfect, there would probably be no discussions. @Ikan Kekek: My answers to Basile's comments were not protests, I just kindly explained that the lens flares were caused by small raindrops falling on the lens during exposure and they were not caused by technical problems. The only mistake was that I didn't protect the lens well enough from light drizzle, which started again during the long exposure. The second mistake was not to increase the aperture value, because the plan was to shoot only one ship. But that evening, due to delays, two Scandinavian ferries and a large Finnish freighter left the port shortly after each other. That's why the light of the red portside beacon is a bit over-illuminated. The additional light trails near the Beacon are from the first ship and the red single light trail comes from the huge rotor sail of the Danish hybrid ferry which left the harbor as the last one. The focus sat on the first ship and thus on the fairway of all three vessels. @Rhododendrites: I also like the first nomination more despite the detail weaknesses. Perhaps it may be taken back into the nomination if that is possible. But the main thing is that the photos are used for Wikipedia to illustrate the articles. Despite their weaknesses I find them well done, I do not want to withdraw my nomination for this photo. Many thanks in advance to all Wikimedians who use their precious time for my photos. Many greetings from Germany. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The cause of the lens flares is not relevant to my preference for the photo not to have them, and they can be regarded as a defect of the photo or not so regarded, irrespective of their cause. You could choose to edit them out, especially as they were not actually part of the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment which I agree. The lens flares are and were not relevant to the image, they were not intentional. But an extensive retouch of this kind would do more harm than good to the picture. Thanks for understanding. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support because I supported the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear reviewers, I have softened the flashy reflection on the bottom right on the stones. Then I colored it red to match the other reflections. Likewise, from the top left, I colored in the first one. An attempted retouching had only made things worse. In my opinion, the photo works with the reflections and does not disturb the viewer. Additionally I have enlarged a bit the image section. @Ikan Kekek: Regarding the two issues with the bot and an undo of the incorrect speedy close, I contacted an experienced OTRS administrator via email. Unfortunately, FP canditatures are outside his field of experience. Perhaps as an advanced reviewer, you can find a way to get some expert advice through the community. Many greetings. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ship_light_trails,_Rostock.jpg&oldid=540256630"