Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grubenlampe, Halde Rheinpreußen, Blaue Stunde, 2010-10-09, I.jpg

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

File:Grubenlampe, Halde Rheinpreußen, Blaue Stunde, 2010-10-09, I.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 19:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The mining lamp on the Halde Rheinpreußen
I suppose that Alvesgaspar likes more light to the dark parts.. IMO the dark parts of the image support the form of the Grubenlampe. I mean that the dark parts of the image drops the attention to the Grubenlampe. Ggia (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should write that und shouldn't compare pictures of a Wikipedia recreational photographer with photos which were stitched with images taken with (f***ing) expensive cameras. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comments to (recently) Alvesgaspar (concerning comparing work of other users) you can read here [1] in this nomination: [2]. Probably this issue should be discussed in the talk page.. Personally I find no-sense comparing a user work with another user.. This kind of comparison can be made ie. when we have the same subject photographed by different users under different lighting condition etc.. Ggia (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about the goal of FPC and the evaluation criteria. Two important notes: first, we assess images here, not photographers. When I referred to Diliff's pictures, I was not comparing authors or even their creations as a whole, but just giving examples of excellence in certain classes (panos or night shots). In the present case, other very good examples exist of night pictures, e.g. this one; second, it should be irrelevant for assessment purposes what kind of camera was used, either a point-and-shoot or a f**ing expensive one. The goal of FPC is to identify "the best Commons has to offer". Finally, I want to emphasize once more that it is the priviledge of the reviewer to use whatever kind of arguments or examples he wishes to support his honest opinion, provided he remains within scope and addresses the picture, not the author. For the second time, Ggia suggests to start a discussion on this issue. Please go ahead! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no misunderstanding from my point of view. I already wrote I suppose that Alvesgaspar likes more light to the dark parts... From the Arc Triomphe image I understand also this: that you like the image to have light in the dark parts. As I wrote above.. the dark parts of the image IMO works here creatively.. they drop the attention directly to the to Grubenlampe... this is also why I support the image.. because the dark parts of the image.. are not flaws. I understand that you consider Diffs photos examples of excellence.. but this is your opinion.. all the featured images of commons are examples of some kind of excellence. Comparing Arc Triomphe image with this image has no sense.. these are two different images (subject) and they have different lighting conditions. It has sense to compare an image with another image the same subject (ie. with same or different lighting conditions). Ggia (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Grubenlampe,_Halde_Rheinpreußen,_Blaue_Stunde,_2010-10-09,_I.jpg&oldid=45788027"