Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dg5artipayallar 036.jpg

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

File:Dg5artipayallar 036.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 15:38:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
   * Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
         o almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
         o night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
         o beautiful does not always mean valuable.
This, the fifth point of the guidelines for nominators. It is not evident for me the value of this picture. Grinatyou (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see. What is a "valuable picture", then ? And why this one is not valuable to your eyes ? In my opinion, this picture is not against this fifth point. It is not an anonymous sunset, it is not an undetailed night shot, and his value is not (only) due to his beauty. --Jebulon (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it is not valuable. I was just asking why is it. It is not self evident. For what I see only see, a sunset, and the silhouette of some fishermen and a dock. Is the picture showing something that specially happens there? I just don't know. Seems to me that you can have pretty much the same picture in many other places. Is the size of the sun special in that place? Are the fishermen doing something sui generis? What I know about it is not enough to get a sense of its value. Grinatyou (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 FWIW Firstly Rule #7, secondly it could be used to illustrate certain photographic techniques like silhouettes. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a simple Canon PowerShot S5 IS. I have no filter or other tools. This image comes out straigth out of the camera. In this geography you dont need a color filter to see this amazing colors. Thanks for the comments though. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And is this opposition about my opposition on this file? File:20101024 Acropolis panoramic view from Areopagus hill Athens Greece.jpg. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do such things.. Ggia (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ozgurmulazimoglu, please assume good faith. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry if i broke hearts. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't discuss other reviewers or their hearts and you'll do fine. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Inspiring composition mitigating the less-than-optimal technical quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose-- OK, a comment is not motivational enough to give a proper explanation. I don't see the value of this picture beyond being beautiful. The claims "it is not an anonymous place", when you don't see more than a dock and a sunset and therefore can be almost anywhere, "it is better than any sunset" and "his value is not (only) due to his beauty", which don't explain why and seems to be expecting that I accept it as an act of faith, do not convince me. Grinatyou (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please "[e]xplain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is really chromatic aberration. The light is close to monochromatic and they are not using a particularly small focal length (I think). This is just diffraction of the light near the contour of the fishermen. It will happen no matter what camera, lens or technique you use as long as you are far enough from the subject. CA and this are two diffraction phenomenons but one happens at the lens and this one at the mens [sic]. Grinatyou (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but diffraction will occur every time you have a wave passing next to an object. It is noticed better in situation with high contrast like this one. Take a candle and put your hand between it and a wall. The farther the hand from the wall the blurred the shadows edges. This is what is happening here. Nothing to do with the camera, lens or sensor. Grinatyou (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, diffraction is present, but I'm not convinced that it explains what we are seeing. The width for the first maximum in the diffraction pattern is 5 mm at the 80 m subject distance (focal length=35.4 mm; sensor width = 5.76 mm) while the bright yellow fringe (outside the silhouette) looks more like 10-20 mm to me.[1] Also, the fringe would be the same color as the sky. I think it may be an artifact due to overexposure which I describe below. It is much less apparent near the men's feet which is not overexposed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dg5artipayallar_036.jpg&oldid=785670541"