Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cotton candy seller.jpg

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

File:Cotton candy seller.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2011 at 13:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Typically alla Tomascatelazo, and therefore nice. But technically very noisy, + strong chromatic aberration, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Jebulon, thanks for the compliment! However... Noise? Yes, so? Where is it written that noise is bad? Noise can be the result of processing done to correct a photograph due to a number of conditions. Those conditions can be unavoidable external factors and the possibilities presented can be reduced to picture or no picture. Well, most of the time I choose picture. An image is better than no image. In photography one has to take the attitude of making the best of a bad situation, and have the technical expertise of making the bad look not so bad... What matters at the end is the image, the content with an adequate amount of quality, of visual and content value, and you cannot pass absolute judgement on issues that are not necessarily trascendental. Like the old saying goes, you cannot judge a book by its cover... for good or bad. In the good old days, film companies strived to make grainless film, and we photographers sometimes processed film to counteract grainless looks, at will. Good photography, while it demands good technical values, depends more on qualitative values, and brings the technical aspects into line to support its content and aesthetical values, and not the other way around. One designs the cart according to the horse one has... CA? me no see it... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Personally I don't like the composition and the colors... --Llorenzi (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Would you care to sustantiate your evaluation? One thing is to say that you don´t like the colors, another is to say that there is a wrong rendition of colors. While one is a response to personal aethetic preferences, the other is not. On your personal preferences there is nothing to say, but when you make a cuantitative evaluation, like oversaturated and overexposed, then surely you must have said so based on numerical values. So is the oppose vote based on objective and measurable criteria or based on personal preference? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cotton_candy_seller.jpg&oldid=61243051"