Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica Estrela April 2010-1a.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Basilica Estrela April 2010-1a.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 23:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info At the spot today, I expected that a shot from below would capture more effectively the expression of this Saint Mary Magadalena of Pazzy. In this interpretation the unfocused hands represent the material and imperfect world, while the face represents the imortal spirit... Basilica of Estrela, Lisbon, Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my god, Joaquim, you are a genius. At least with respect to your nomination texts. I was already impressed by composition on green and violet, but this one takes the cake. --Dschwen (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Daniel, finally someone noticed! What Photography is to me is explained in my profile, which is sitting in the MOP page for aeons ([1]) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Daniel was being sarcastic. --Muhammad (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Was he really Muhammad? To be sure you will have to ask him! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can take my comment at face value, I am really impressed by the ability to word the thoughts you had when composing the picture, and the fact that you had actual thoughts when taking the picture (beyond a simple mh, that looks good). The flipside is the danger of overselling your work. But labeling my comment to be sarcasm is a bit mean (and straight up bad faith). I'm a little hurt now. --Dschwen (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again, Daniel, but that wasn't exactely like you say. When I was composing the picture, all I wanted was to exagerate the perspective and focus on the expression of the face. But I was not very convinced it would result (the thoughts were something like: 'mh, this one will go probably straight to the trash basket when I get home'). Only later, when adjusting the framing, did the mystical interpretation crossed my head (not bad for a non-religious person...). No, I don't believe the words help to sell the picture because most of the reviewers don't appreciate this kind of artistic liberty... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The supports seem to prove you wrong, for now :-) --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but that is the superior quality of the picture! Most people here don't read the intro (or open the pic in full size, for that matter). Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The supports seem to prove you wrong, for now :-) --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't imagine you getting hurt, unless that is another sarcastic comment as well ;-) Sorry, if I have hurt your feelings though --Muhammad (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You must think that I'm a monster :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why would I think that? Now I am hurt :p --Muhammad (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You must think that I'm a monster :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again, Daniel, but that wasn't exactely like you say. When I was composing the picture, all I wanted was to exagerate the perspective and focus on the expression of the face. But I was not very convinced it would result (the thoughts were something like: 'mh, this one will go probably straight to the trash basket when I get home'). Only later, when adjusting the framing, did the mystical interpretation crossed my head (not bad for a non-religious person...). No, I don't believe the words help to sell the picture because most of the reviewers don't appreciate this kind of artistic liberty... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can take my comment at face value, I am really impressed by the ability to word the thoughts you had when composing the picture, and the fact that you had actual thoughts when taking the picture (beyond a simple mh, that looks good). The flipside is the danger of overselling your work. But labeling my comment to be sarcasm is a bit mean (and straight up bad faith). I'm a little hurt now. --Dschwen (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Was he really Muhammad? To be sure you will have to ask him! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Daniel was being sarcastic. --Muhammad (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Daniel, finally someone noticed! What Photography is to me is explained in my profile, which is sitting in the MOP page for aeons ([1]) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great perspective. Steven Walling 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support, FP. JukoFF (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - the composition and crop do not work for me, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Amazing how different the impression is from this angle, compared to the other one. Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I go ditto to Jonathunder - MPF (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - to me the perspective from below makes the face and especially the nose look distorted and the hands look to big. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As others opponents.--Karel (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)