Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sky Garden - Workmen.jpg

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

File:Sky Garden - Workmen.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 16:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of workmen from Sky Garden
Discussion irrelevant to the FP candidate
      • What is the difference between suggesting an uncropped version and suggesting a further crop to be made? I don't see the problem, as long as they're requests and not demands. Diliff (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question you ask is not the issue. Laitche thinks the "color version" (i.e. the original) "should" be shown. So that's a demand, albeit a polite one. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't see it as a demand though. It comes down to (as per a conversation we had a while ago) the "I think" prefixing it. If you say 'you think' something should occur, you're saying that 'in your opinion, it would be best if...', not an authoritative 'you should do x!'. I don't see the problem with what he said, given some allowances for English not being his first language. I think the main reason 'requests' to crop are acceptable and normalised here is because it's easy (and legal under CC-BY-SA) to extrapolate a crop from an uploaded image and anyone can do it, but you can't extrapolate a colour image from a uploaded B&W image or 'uncrop' an image, so the control over this is solely with the original author. They're all equally deviations from the original creative intent though. Diliff (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrt to your first sentence, you are simply wrong. But I have no interest in arguing further about language usage nor irrelevant aspects of what was merely an analogy. The conversation was between me and Latche and he appeared to understand just fine. Can we discuss images rather that words? -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, you're taking an opinion and interpreting it as a statement of fact. It is not. You are simply wrong. Anyway, perhaps Laitche can clarify whether he thinks his comment was a demand or a request. And yes, of course we can discuss images. I'd quite like to in fact, but you chose to ignore the part of my reply that discussed images. Diliff (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • For crying out loud, Diliff, would you just drop it. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Consider it dropped. I just think you've had a bit of a tantrum here and misunderstood Laitche. That's all I've been trying to say all along. Diliff (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Diliff: Yes, my comment is a request but I don't care if the creator don't want to do. And thanks, I believe I can testify myself, I think there are trillions types of personalities though actually there aren't trillions people on the earth... :) --Laitche (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thanks Laitche. That's what I thought. I wasn't trying to testify for you, I know you can do that for yourself. But that doesn't mean I can't also disagree with Colin about the claims he makes. And yes there are many personalities, but this was not an issue of opinion that we can all agree to disagree about. He said you were demanding (fact claim), I said I thought you weren't (my opinion), and then you said you weren't (confirmation). He was wrong, end of story really. Diliff (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

Should verb used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.[1].

Should verb the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory.[2]

Example 1: When Diliff finds himself having an argument about what someone wrote rather than the topic he should consider that his own initial interpretation of the wording may not be the only one that is valid, and that another interpretation may prove to be better fit.

Example 2: Laitche should take care to avoid the word "should" when making requests where he does not care about the response. The words "request" and "demand" are synonyms, with the latter having more insistence and obligation. When a request is modified by the word "should" it reasonable to interpret that as a demand, albeit one without urgency.

By saying "I think the color version should be shown in other versions" Laitche is saying he considers doing this to be an "obligation, duty, or correctness" on my part. That is not a mere request. And it is that that I objected to. I don't want to see another post on this candidate page that doesn't concern the qualities (or lack) of the image above. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I don't find that the b & w does anything to enhance the viewers perception of the image and the reflections are distracting.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good enough, different. Good composition. However, I would have shown more of the building on the right, separate it a bit from the basket. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it would have been nice to get that separation. The workmen were slowly moving (up or down, can't remember) so I didn't get a lot of chance to try different arrangements. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral about composition a tourist is distracting for me and upper left wall? and the reflection as well, about quality a little not sharp and maybe a little noisy. --Laitche (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laitche, you're pixel-peeping wrt sharpness and noise. Look at the rope or the stubble on the man's face, and remember the workmen are behind glass. Unlike a Diliff cathedral or just about any other picture you see on the internet, this is not downsized at all. The sharpness we see on many pictures at FP is an illusion. What you see here is just what images look like at normal size. What you think is noise is just textures, fabric and dirty windows. This image was taken at ISO 100 and not pushed. I don't mind comments about composition or distracting elements but please can we move on from picking apart, at pixel level and 100% magnification, an image that has not been downsized. It just makes people submit 5MP images to FP to avoid this sort of hassle. Unless, after downsizing to 5MP (say), you can still see noise or CA or an image still looks unsharp, then it has no real-world relevance at all, and just shows concern for the wrong aspects of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that my downsampled images tend to be much sharper than this and much higher resolution, so they're not only sharper because they're downsampled. However, they're not the same style of photography and can't be directly compared and I agree that too much pixel peeping is a problem here. Diliff (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tuxyso mentioned that Photos are a very subjective matter. in this nomination I agree with that opinion especially for the composition and about noise I wrote maybe so I'm not sure cause I've never seen the color version and reflection as well :) --Laitche (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The endemic problem here is an over-focus on tiny objective "flaws" which are then (wrongly) subjectively regarded as worth opposing or (as above) worth mentioning (even with a "maybe"). It's a bad habit and makes FP look amateurish. -- Colin (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm, it's a bit sensitive problem, others may be misunderstanding my comment, maybe you too, I voted neutral because of composition-wise if this composition is my favorite, I would vote support despite if there are flaws. I think that depends on the voters, and you wrote "The scene isn't doing anything for me. Not FP" in this nomination, that "for me" means I don't know ( or care ) others. right? I think it's same. --Laitche (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, I get that you are neutral on the composition and that if you thought the picture was great that you'd over look the "flaws". My point is that these aren't "flaws" and I do wish FPC would stop pixel-peeping. It is an correctly focused photograph, taken with a high-quality lens/camera, at ISO 100 in daylight. Is "not downsized" a flaw? It is simply wrong to look at it 100% on a big monitor and claim it is "little not sharp and maybe a little noisy". The Japanese garden isn't comparable as subjective opinions about what images "work" is perfectly valid. Pixel peeping simply isn't. It is simply bad reviewing, and FP should work harder to avoid it. Please don't let us become as bad as QI seems to be with such nit picking. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You might be a bit picky for the comments :) --Laitche (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm. Well I'm consistent on this, no matter who creates or nominates the picture. I've campaigned against pixel-peeping comments at FPC for years, and don't plan on stopping. Hopefully it has an effect over time. If nobody complains then it just appears that such review comments are acceptable. And they absolutely aren't. Next time you find yourself reviewing a downsized 5MP FP candidate, that looks sharp and noiseless, consider whether it is you, Laitche, who prevented Commons from getting a 36MP instead. Because there are several nominators with 24/36MP cameras who do just that, and Commons is the worse for it. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks, Colin, for a somewhat different candidate. Keenly observed and well taken --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Not good but very good, even more...-- Christian Ferrer 10:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. I do think that compositionally, it's awkward. I suppose you only had a moment to compose the shot, but I think it would have been stronger if you got a bit closer, more to the right side and lower so that the window bar was out of the frame at the top, or at least above the top of the Shard. There's a bit too much sky for my liking. Diliff (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent composition, nice effects. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is the kind of photo that makes you think. I like the reflections on the workers and the overall balance of the elements of composition. B&W was a good idea here; maybe the woman was wearing a bright red sweater which would have distracted the viewer's attention, or perhaps the sky was an unattractive pastel blue. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Strong composition. I think its a great photo--ArildV (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Support Something different --· Favalli ⟡ 02:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sky_Garden_-_Workmen.jpg&oldid=163664631"