Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Historical stylization- Slavic of the 13th century, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg

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

File:Historical stylization- Slavic of the 13th century, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 23:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Medieval living history. Modern stylized imagery of the Slavs of the 12th-13th centuries from Moscow Oblast.
  •  Comment It's different to Photoshop a file than to actually have a version with the rest of the stick you could merge into this or something. I'm with Charles on not approving of this particular kind of fakery. Besides, it's still quite a tight crop, and the other issues mentioned in this thread remain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look up the word "fakery". As for the rest, the difficulty of making featured pictures is really the point. It's not easy to satisfy voters that a photo is one of the very best on the site. Why should it be easy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I did not expect to hear this from you... I didn't get any clearer. This is a very strong your word that cannot be used so freely here. A strong general accusation. Emotions? We need supporting facts from your side. This is where the styling is (because of the horses of the stables, small parts), but from the professionals (Mainstream and Progressive). Stylization = not a pure historical reconstruction from a scientific point of view (it is also rare in museums). — Niklitov (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Version 2. Minimum processing: the horizon is leveled and a little brightness added. There is a lot of forest („air“). Everyone is looking at the camera or slightly nearby.  Question Do I need to apply for FP status again or can I discuss the photo here?
I was using the word "fakery" in regard to the now-reverted Photoshopping of the stick, but the lack of historical accuracy of the scene does limit its educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support a few technical shortcomings, sure, but I don't find the sharpness that big of an issue and appreciate the effort at (a) recreating the historic dress, (b) information about where the styles come from, (c) nice colors (if a little oversaturated), and (d) nice light in a nice setting. Seems to be more of a historically interested endeavor than similar kinds of shots IMO. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Hi, Charlesjsharp! Before assigning the FP status, we can modify the file, if there is such a possibility and we can fix something. This is standard practice, isn't it? Example 1, example 2. Please tell me which template are you talking about? — Niklitov (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version.

  •  Weak support per Rhododendrites. The four people in the middle are the main subject, not the guys on the horses or the forest behind them, and they're all sharp and looking at the camera. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit ignorance on the subject. They seemed to be going for something more than casual dress-up, but perhaps not. (Also, I'm curious about that photoshop edit -- where did that bit come from? It doesn't look like it came from this photo.) — Rhododendrites talk |  12:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is not 100% authentic. It is very, very difficult to achieve 100% authenticity, even in the cinema there is no such thing! Yes, horses are not 13th century. Therefore, photography is called stylization, and not a scientific historical reconstruction. I understand that you want with Ikan Kekek the scientific reconstruction, right? :) There are photographs, each character separately. And it is not necessary for a person to look at the camera at the same time. Isn't it? — Niklitov (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overall noisy and a bit over-contrasty, tight crop, faces a bit too bright (close to overexposure), and I don’t like the birch tree to grow out of the lady’s head. --Kreuzschnabel 11:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It seems to me alone that this is too much? The cropping of the photo is good, IMHO. Costumes based on archaeological finds from kurgans. In all photographs, where the background is a dense forest, trees grow out of the head, no matter how you turn the camera. lol Maybe a little overexposure, but this is probably the shooting style. Is this a disadvantage? — Niklitov (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Andrei (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Which version are we voting for by now – the original version, the redone original version, or "version 2" showing an entirely different shot? Please avoid such confusion. Every vote should refer to the same version of the same image. If you decide to prefer a different one, please withdraw your first nomination and nominate the second separately to make it clear what we are talking about. --Kreuzschnabel 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes,  Delist and replace . Of course, I withdraw the nomination. It took me a while to realize that there was a distortion of the first version in Photoshop. Please forgive me, Ikan Kekek and other Wikimedia Commons project participants! — Niklitov (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Historical_stylization-_Slavic_of_the_13th_century,_Karoling_Club_Ruza.jpg&oldid=587535732"