Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Coca cola lady.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Support --Tomascastelazo 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- Support The old lady here is really touching, but the background is a bit distracting, anyway: high quality. Your other lovely "Viejita" is the perfect shot. --LucaG 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Very good photo, but I am not sure it makes it all the way to exceptional for me. The background is a little bit too cluttered IMO - especially at the left-hand-side. Looks like the photo could be improved by a slight CW tilt as well and/or a gentle crop of the wall on the right-hand side. I love the texture of the hand against the wall. The image is only categorized with the rather unspecific Poverty Category. I guess there must be other relevant categories to add too - specific for Mexico or the place/area? Adding more relevant categories will increase the probability that others can actually find your nice photo for a specific purpose besides illustrating poverty. You could improve value of the image page by adding geodata as well. -- Slaunger 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- Neutral, with a cleaner composition, this could be a really great photo. --Aqwis 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I cropped the picture. I usually leave them full frame so people can crop according to their needs. --Tomascastelazo 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- IMO the crop is significantly better. Another ignorant question: How about the Coca-cola trademark and licensing? -- Slaunger 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that if it's in a public place it's fair game per Mexican law. Calibas 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- IMO the crop is significantly better. Another ignorant question: How about the Coca-cola trademark and licensing? -- Slaunger 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Slaunger, no such things as ignorant questions... Generally, anything in public view is fair game. People, brands, etc., etc. if it is used in an editorial way, and even in a commercial manner as long as the intent is not to suggest, imply, etc., sponsoring of the particular symbol or company to whatever the photograph is trying to "sell". I can commercially shoot anthing in the street and have commercial logos present, for good or bad. And that is the way it should be. And if it is art, the options are even larger. I once uploaded a photo collage here but unfortunately some (choose your own adjective), maskerading as purveyors of decency and legality, censored it and deleted it. --Tomascastelazo 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you for the explanation. -- Slaunger 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Slaunger, no such things as ignorant questions... Generally, anything in public view is fair game. People, brands, etc., etc. if it is used in an editorial way, and even in a commercial manner as long as the intent is not to suggest, imply, etc., sponsoring of the particular symbol or company to whatever the photograph is trying to "sell". I can commercially shoot anthing in the street and have commercial logos present, for good or bad. And that is the way it should be. And if it is art, the options are even larger. I once uploaded a photo collage here but unfortunately some (choose your own adjective), maskerading as purveyors of decency and legality, censored it and deleted it. --Tomascastelazo 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad but the lighting is rather poor. Calibas 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Don't like the lighting -- Lerdsuwa 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)- Support --Thermos 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
