Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The meeting of day and night in a mountain valley - photomontage.jpg

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

File:The meeting of day and night in a mountain valley - photomontage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2020 at 02:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The meeting of day and night in a mountain valley with wonderful gold light on a hills and bright stars in a sky.
  •  Oppose It's nice, but very unnatural and file description was misleading (I added additional information). --Ivar (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Fake colors, strong vignetting -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I have corrected the gallery since it belongs in the same place as photos like File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg. --Cart (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak experimental support With image programs getting better and better, this photo is one of a trending art-form, surreal photography, that is starting to generate some internationally recognized artists. One of the most noted is Swedish Erik Johansson with works like Full Moon Service and even one of the most "hot" photographers right now, Chinese Chen Man, is doing layered collages in this genre (like her version of the Eight Immortals or other versions of Chinese iconography) or acclaimed Annie Leibovitz with her fairy tales photos.. This image looks like it could be inspired by Erik's Daybreaker. This nom's author seems to be quite good at this art-form and I think this could be a candidate to represent it among the FPs. We have other modern computer art images like manga and fractals, so why not some of surreal photography. BUT, it should be made very clear that these images are fantasy creations and they should be restricted to categories for art. Placing this in categories like "Astronomy" is wrong and downright deceptive, and I urge Vian not to mix works like this in categories with normal photos plus state very clearly on the file pages that these are montages. Perhaps also mention how many photos were used, locations for the originals and something about the technique used to create them (just like Erik Johansson does). --Cart (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support All per Cart :) - Benh (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The boundaries between photography and painting are becoming increasingly blurred. But there are some mistakes in this Disney-like scene. When the sun is in the sky like here you don't see any stars and when you see them then they are not as big as potatoes. I personally miss the unicorn.--Ermell (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Cart. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think there's anything wrong with a photomontage per se, as long as it's clearly marked out as one. But I'm not sure I actually like the photo. It's very well done technically but it just looks so unreal that it bears no relation to what you'd ever see in real life, and I don't find that beautiful. To me photography is about capturing reality in unusual and beautiful ways, not about creating a fantasy landscape that has only a tangential relationship with reality. Cmao20 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like drawings, paintings, 3D artworks, videos, and all kinds of media, photomontages are of course fully acceptable, as long as their purpose is clear. And Erik Johansson is a good (but here misleading) example of what would be great to promote in FP. Unfortunately this work is far far from this genius. On the contrary, it exactly follows the non-original track of the current trend, facilitated by all the modern ways of production for such unreal-overprocessed-and-oversatured landscapes (Instagram, and many popular mobile apps). That's a question of taste, but of laziness also for the observers who just resign to celebrate the current fashion. Let me guess this photomontage won't last long. Proof of the lack of creativity is that the same technique with the same kind of sentimental scenery was repeated many times without diversity. Is it a style? Yes, it seems so. As a result, this work is "kitsch" in its main (and sorry, pejorative) meaning (Wikipedia): "it implies that the work in question is gaudy, or that it serves a solely ornamental and decorative purpose rather than amounting to a work of what may be seen as true artistic merit." Another proof is the unclear intention of the uploader. And that's very important. Since you can consider the work of your own child as a sublime piece of art, unfortunately as long as the drawing is not claimed as such by the author, that's your own imagination which goes too far. As I see this upload, like many others uploaded by the same user Vian, it was proposed as part of the Wiki Science Competition. And then was sorted by the jury in the Category:Obviously ineligible submissions for WSC 2017 in Ukraine. The wrong description also reveals the initial absence of artistic aim. Certainly a sentimental person with technical abilities, but definitely not a creator aware as suggested above. "Kitsch is, unlike art, a utilitarian object lacking all critical distance between object and observer." Ivar says "it's nice" (means cute in my view, not hurting any sensibility), Ermell says it's Disney-like (means the same I think), but frankly, this is not original. At least I've seen millions of similar images already. Much closer to this (over-saturated), than that (all natural! wow). Spot the error -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this expresses a lot of the points I was thinking about myself. The same uploader has produced many very similar photomontages that use identical techniques and that seem more or less interchangeable. This is not the sign of a great creative work of art. Cmao20 (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Cart; I guess I can't complain since I've seen and photographed the the very real sight of the sun in the night sky (as have others in this discussion), the twain meeting, and I am glad this one is clearly identified as something that could never be seen in real life (at least on this planet).

    But at the same time since POTY was mentioned ... it may be too late to do it this year (i.e., for 2019's images), but I think it is past high time we started awarding in categories (i.e., the ones we group the nominees in) as well as overall, and there should be a photomontage/photo illustration category for this and images like it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the way we do it, where the top two from each section are automatically finalists, some of the categories (like this hypothetical category) are rather small. Perhaps a broader "other"... — Rhododendrites talk |  00:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Seems like there was a section for posters of this sort of thing at the local mall (back in the 90s when I was at the age when one looks through posters at the mall :) ), but probably not actual photomontages. It feels a little dated as such, but supporting because it's a pretty effective instance of this sort of thing, and it's something we don't often see at FPC. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
back in the 90s when I was at the age when one looks through posters at the mall" Back in the 1990s when there were places in the mall to look through posters, you also mean. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /✖️\ Basile Morin (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_meeting_of_day_and_night_in_a_mountain_valley_-_photomontage.jpg&oldid=404025784"