Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papierflieger -- 2021 -- 7215 (bw, high key).jpg

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

File:Papierflieger -- 2021 -- 7215 (bw, high key).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2021 at 04:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paper aircraft
  • I've been thinking for a long time about which picture I think is better. To be honest, I was very hesitant, but then decided on the nominated variant. --XRay 💬 09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Buidhe. I think that version is much better to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I would also support the other version, but the paper wings in this one seems less wrinkled. There's also a minimalist aspect I appreciate in this fully white version, it is like a game of shadows: the subject is distinguishable just because of its outlines and that's more artistic in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose the plane based on its appearance - regardless of its flight characteristics. It should also be foldable as little as possible. (And also a picture before (!) the first flight. ;-) ) --XRay 💬 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Buidhe, would support the other version. --Ivar (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have absolutely no idea why one would support the other version at FP level. By all means support that one for a VI of a paper aeroplane if that is the only purpose of the photo. But that one is just a photo of a paper aeroplane on some cream coloured card. The creases and imperfections are all too obvious. Whereas this BW version concentrates the eye on the shades and makes the mind work harder to see the shape. The contrast between the hard paper edge and the soft shadow edge is solely due to changes in grey and no coloured background adds complexity to that here. I like that the far tip is nearly indistinguishable from the background. Indeed having features of one object merge into obscurity with another (white for high key, black for low key) is a feature of high/low key photography. This should be featured as a high-key photo of a paper sculpture and I think it is a good example of that. Anyone can take a documentary photo of a paper aeroplane. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 This is photographic art, the other is not. --Cart (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FPC instructions state:

    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: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable.

  •  Comment First, that's not my interpretation at all. The point is, in huge categories (sunsets) in which most photos are beautiful, we look for unusually special or useful photos. In this case, the photo that's more unusual is the high-key version that's nominated. I oppose it and support the other one because the contrast makes for a better composition to my eyes and mind, but your own argument works against you. This isn't a VIC nomination of the most valuable paper airplane photo on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it valuable for a high-key photograph? --XRay 💬 07:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, using the word "encyclopedic" on Commons FP is a bit like swearing. This is an educational media repository, not just a source of images to illustrate encyclopaedia articles. The difference is felt to be important by many here. This image is "in some way special" whereas a standard photo of a paper aeroplane is a bit mundane, albeit technically fine. IMO a more encyclopedic photo would either include some small person's hands folding the sheets over or include a hand holding the plane for take-off. That would represent the personally-made and then played-with aspect of the plane which sets it apart from many toys. Most photographers here are capable of sitting an object on a piece of paper and taking a photo of it with an expensive camera. At FP, I hope we are selecting only the "finest", and something "in some way special". -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Colin about this gambling den called FPC. But I also think XRay has a point since the rules say that an 'oppose' should be accompanied by a real explanation, and that should be more than a few words or an empty phrase. (See COM:FPC#Voting) Worst of all are the "nothing of interest" or "per others" that are being spread by a clan of habitual opposers. They are used as get-out-of-jail-free-cards instead of putting some time or effort into the vote/review, proxies for the prohibited phrase "I don't like it". I know I can't change this, just needed to vent --Cart (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
per other
per above...
There were 202 "per" last month (archives), given by 33 different revievers (oppose votes): Karelj, Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Daniel Case, Kruusamägi, Kallerna, Milseburg, Basile Morin, Aristeas, Rhododendrites, A.Savin, Ivar, Ermell, Commonists, Trougnouf, Peulle, RolfHill, Gnosis, Uoaei1, Colin, Draceane, IamMM, Cayambe, Fischer.H, El Grafo, SM:!), Basotxerri, Seven Pandas, StellarHalo, Michielverbeek, Buidhe, Vulphere, Llez -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally mind "per" if someone has already actually articulated what you would like to say. The interesting phenomenon is how the existence of an oppose seems to make others more likely to oppose (many don't want to be the first to oppose). I've never particularly liked "nothing of interest." I chalk it up to translation of "wow," which is a completely subjective measure which we do nonetheless require consideration of. Still, "nothing of interest" (or "nothing special") reframes "it does not wow me" as though the image is inherently unimpressive. Meh. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comment by Cart was more aimed at those who regularly vote "per" rather than articulate their reasons, vs those who may occasionally vote "per" because someone else has already said all they want to say. Yes, Rhododendrites, there is a herd mentality where unbroken support encourages further support, and I'd say a good percentage of reviewers never "first oppose" vote. The FPC system only functions because of those who are strong enough to make the first oppose. Without them, it is just a popularity contest. The subsequent "per" votes are somewhat freeriding on the bravery of the original opposer, and whose second-hand opinion is less likely to be challenged. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Colin got my intention right. Basile is as usual raking through the mud of the past to find things to hurl back at me instead of adding input to the discussion. It is the lemming mentality or hiding behind "template phrases" that is so frustrating. It does not advance the project with greater understanding about photos and images if we don't articulate our thoughts about them. I don't think anyone can accuse me of not speaking my mind, and doing so often. In fact, I have sometimes gone with the "per" voting to not always stand out. (I'm human, so sue me.) On the whole, I wish more people would follow the intention of the FPC rules to learn from 'opposes' rather than to just be downcast by them, or learn bad habits. --Cart (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For goodness sake, Basile, I'm not attacking you in any way. "raking through the mud of the past" is an expression, meaning that you go searching for old stuff like you did in your previous post. The "lemming mentality etc" is not directed at you, you are certainly not a lemming, but the general behavior of FPC voters we were discussing. Colin calls it "herd mentality", same thing, I just didn't want to repeat his phrase. --Cart (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Papierflieger_--_2021_--_7215_(bw,_high_key).jpg&oldid=556504726"