Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shadow David Michelangelo.jpg

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

File:Shadow David Michelangelo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 16:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by the evening sun, a copyist of Michelangelo, and by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Once upon a time, on my talk page, after an unfortunate nomination of another museum picture, I found this message: However, as has also been the case previously — the ignorant culture crowd , we are not thrilled by it. Why? I think it is because it is too factual and perhaps "cold". For me a good FP, is a picture which catch the attention of users, which are normally not trained in a subject or not knowledgable about a certain topic, but which wets the appetite by inviting the viewer into the picture. To achieve that I think you need to deviate from the classic museum shot and do something completely different from being very factual. You may want to use a different kind of lightning - one that does not necessarily best catch all painstaking details in the sculpture, but which brings out feelings of drama, anger, power, dispair or whatever characterized the person depicted by the sculpture. Maybe the angle you see it from should be completely different, maybe it should be a zoom on a feature of the sculpture, an eye, the mouth, the texture of the stone, I do not know, but something that brings it to life. Doing that may be at the cost of being factual, all-encompassing detailed or a slight bend of reality. But if you thereby create a photo, which is unusual, eyecatching, with an interesting composition, you may catch the attention of some of us ignorants, who just have not seen the light yet.

Well... It was an interesting lesson, wasn't it ? I found this recent picture in my collection, and I'm happy to offer it to you. Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Yes -- Cephas (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it is a nice idea, but qualifies the image not for a featured candidate - we are not judging about "nice" or "creative" pictures. --

Yikrazuul (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

  •  Support I'm generally against alternative versions, but I've tried this one because I'm interested by the challenge, and I think it is funny in this case. Sorry for the digital manipulations (cloning out the banner). Thanks in advance for feedback.--Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oy, I thought the ImageAnnotator would be a simple process, not some crazy code. Anyway, there are cloning artifacts that, even without knowing about the cloning, some would appear somewhat obvious. Still not an FP image in my opinion. It doesn't really illustrate anything. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "oy", referring to the annotation thing, not your picture. And dude, opposes on FPC aren't anything personal, stop acting like everything is an attack on you and you need to retort. You do this every time, not just with my last two opposes. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 12:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a "dude". Please stop give me orders about what I have to do or not, even if I understand very well that you would prefer to be alone with nobody to "retort" to your (...) and systematic oppositions. --Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dudette then? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm truly sorry because in full size this looks quite good! But when I go look at the details the repetitive pattern starts to disturb too much. Though, it is good cloning work and I guess it's very hard to do it better. --Ximonic (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant to say in thumbnail not in full size. My bad. --Ximonic (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment In way to improve, could you please annotate the repetitive pattern you see ? Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added annotations to some spots where the repeating texture catched my eye a little too easily. This might be difficult to solve because the clones always have to be from somewhere. I'm not sure if would it work, but maybe you could try to clone some texture on these spots from somewhere further on the image, so the identical patterns wouldn't be right next to each other. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose interesting light, good quality, composition interesting – but I really see no EV here, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea. But cloning artifacts very obvious and I would prefer a perspective correction. Per Kerαunoςcopia for everything. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree about perspective correction, but it is simply impossible: as the wall is not parallel to the statue, (nor perpendicular to the ground) a correction should have destroyed the proportions of the shadows, and they are good (=according to the model). Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This version is an empty fake comparing the previous one. "Just concentrate to the bare wall, an empty spot, and a miracle happens"? Nevertheless, this edit altered the real location, and far from perfect. --HoremWeb Place of Auditions 22:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Shadow_David_Michelangelo.jpg&oldid=315276729"