Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg

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

File:Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2023 at 14:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I have made other versions, outside Commons, with tighter crops, and they hold up very nicely too. But not fully with one tree dead center, since I like to keep the irregular forest feeling. With this framing you have a grading across the photo from heavier forest to the left, to clearing up into a field to the right. Your request is something to consider if other voters feel the same. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am dismayed about the itense hatred which manifests itself in such disparaging comments. What has wounded your soul, dear mate? Spraying hatred will not heal your pain. I would like to invite you to try hiking, meditation, prayer, yoga, whatever you like instead. But it should be constructive, because injuring others just keeps your wound open and bleeding. --Aristeas (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+2 I second this. Karelj, all you're doing is deliberately putting others down by spuriously claiming they have no reason to nominate a file for FP. Please read what you write and ask yourself: if someone said that to a photo you put your hard yards into, how would you feel? --SHB2000 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-2 We have a template {{FPX}} "where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP". Just imagine this template with the reason "Low quality". The judgment is subjective and contestable by anyone, however, it's a valid opinion, and here it's a simple comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I almost expected the disparaging comment. Regrettably, it happens again and again. It would be good to remain respectful, polite and factual. --XRay 💬 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As an artist I'm used to harsh critique, it comes with the territory, not everyone can like what you do. It's ok for me personally, but crude behavior in general is not good for this FPC section or Commons. It's not easy to remain civilized and polite in all situations online and I myself is not an exception to that. But to do so repetedly when users obviously are bothered by it, is not ok. A better tone would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-1 ● "Reasonon" is not in my dictionary but is it a reason to lynch a user who makes the effort to formulate a subjective criticism in a foreign language that he apparently masters approximately?
"In my view, it is a low quality image. Just trees. I don't see any reason for FP nomination." ► Is this opinion so harsh that it is unacceptable for the fragile little heart of this group? 💔😭
● Please remember we use official image guidelines at FPC to evaluate the candidates. These guidelines are supposed to be the rules to follow. How do you judge a "quality photo" when the official recommandation is Focus: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." and Motion Blur: "Too long exposure: image has become blurred because of hand shaking or subject moving too fast.". Note that this photo is not Panning, hence the obvious difficulty in judging whether the photo meets the quality criteria or not. The photo is called "Trees in ICM on Myrstigen hiking trail, Brastad 2.jpg" (not "abstract"), so don't be surprised if some reviewers expect to find trees somewhere in the image. And how do you do at FPC when you have absolutely no clue, no indications, no guidelines to evaluate the "quality" of such unconventional pictures? COM:FPC states "General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality." Hmm, based on which aspects please?
● Karelj sees just "wooden pieces". Well, everyone is entitled to share one's point of view. Is there anything else than trunks and branches (wooden pieces) on this photograph? White snow, perhaps, but compare with this work. I don't see anything wrong with someone finding the content rather empty, bare or boring. Is the crime of opinion sanctioned on Commons? Once again, our guidelines states Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor" Is the wow an imperative diktat, in this case? Matter of personal taste. Not everyone has to like Jackson Pollock either: Many observers consider it is "just spilled paint on canvas", sharing this opinion does not mean being hateful.
● "No reason for FP nomination" certainly means "nothing special" (sometimes other people agree). Karelj is among the rare regular contributors working on the POTD templates, and as you know, all pictures of the day are selected from the FP pool. Perhaps this blurry photograph was considered unsuitable for the home page, well, this vision can be justified according to our quality criteria / reception criteria. Once again, it's a question of taste, not of behavior.
● Certainly, the review above could be more softened, and written in a better English (not my mother tongue either, by the way). However, it seems mainly focused on the content of the image. What's wrong? Where are the personal attacks that everyone is complaining about? No insults, no vulgarity. Just a negative comment hastily written. Is it a serious fault?
●  Question @Aristeas, you are one of the most polite and rational people around here, and I am very surprised to discover your allegations of "hatred". You say "Spraying hatred" and "Injuring others" but are you yourself calm /rested /zen /serene enough to hear a point of view different from yours? Hate speech is something else, comrade. In our democracies, anyone is perfectly entitled to dislike an image, a song, a film, and to say it openly, you know. That's not insulting the authors to criticise (negatively) their works, on the contrary, negative feedback often helps to improve.
● I think Kallerna is among the most talented photographers of Commons, and he's probably right to regret that "the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy". It's difficult enough to find the courage to cast a non-consensual opinion in the middle of an unanimous pack, so please don't unnecessarily hinder these divergent points of view, because Commons is not intended to become a Care Bears world 🌈 nor the universality of beauty and good. These {{Oppose}} votes represent minor red spots in a green forest, you should make the effort to welcome these differences rather than digging on wrong ground to discredit them. Marginality / originality is precious.
● I read with astonishment that many people above feel "dismayed about the intense hatred", but honestly, such a lynching for such an insignificant gap gives me the impression that intolerance rather comes from the other side, if I dare express my feeling. I had to check if the comment had been modified to believe this discussion. Unfortunately no, this relentlessness is only caused by this clumsy little text? Wow! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As most readers apparently understood immediately, my comment does not refer to the mere fact that Karelj voted against this picture – objective contra voices with meaningful, constructive reasons related to the specific picture always enrich the discussion. Rather, my comment refers to the patronising wording of Karelj’s comment, which (apart from the dismissive phrase “some wooden pieces”) has no recognisable reference to the picture, and to the fact that it fits seamlessly into a long series of similar disparaging comments by Karelj. This series of scornful remarks, some with clearly insulting expressions like “a picture for the waste bin” etc., gives me the impression that Karelj is very injured, harbours a deep resentment and has difficulty dealing with his aggression. That dismays me. So I’ve tried to point Karelj towards better ways of dealing with aggression and emotional wounds. If I have hurt him – or you? – with this, I am of course deeply sorry. That doesn’t change the fact that I consider disparaging comments to be inappropriate and unhelpful. I prefer to discuss pictures objectively with constructive and respectful reviews, and I have the impression that many other participants hold the same view. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only "some wooden pieces", the comment also mentions the (alleged) "low quality", that directly refers to the technical aspect of the picture. By the way, let's see the glass half full rather than half empty: if the previous comments were "waste bin" (I don't remember but perhaps), then this one appears much more moderate in comparison. Honestly, and once again, I do not read this comment as an attack, in my opinion it expresses a firm rejection of the image, with surely a lot of clumsiness in the writing, and without a doubt an absence of delicacy, but nothing catastrophic, no insult, no marked hatred. This is an important point given the allegations and the consequences -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) You make some pretty valid and fair points, Basile, and kudos on you for making it more balanced. However, as a native English speaker, the phrase "I don't see any reason for FP nomination" (or "no reason for FP nomination" as Karel mentions in some other FPC noms) goes a lot more than what it sounds at face value. To me, it comes out across as "why did you nominate this?!" or "what was the purpose of you nominating this utterly useless pic?", because the tone of it is passive aggressive and flat-out rude (which is something you would never say in real life without consequences – same applies here). That's what Aristeas and I find problematic – not because of Karel's different opinions. We just don't think Karel should be allowed to simply get a slap on the wrist for their choice of words. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question "why did you nominate this?" (as you say for comparison) sounds very neutral, soft and valid, in my view, based on the FP requirements in relation to the "quality" criteria. In real life, many things can be said with an adequate tone. We need evidence, no guesses. COM:AGF: "When using a second language, people can sometimes express themselves in ways that convey a different tone or message than the one intended. To avoid false assumptions about the intentions of other editors, keep in mind that language barriers can cause misunderstandings. Editors who use a language other than their own usually do so out of courtesy to others." Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is one of the few cases where I don't exactly agree with the principle of COM:AGF – words can be subject to interpretation differently, based on context, and English is one of those languages where there is no one certain way of speaking and understanding it. I could write a message in very bad faith but twist it to make it deliberately ambiguous, and you'd have no way of proving that I had ill-intent. Same applies here, which is why the principle of COM:AGF is hard to apply here. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
France Dans nos sociétés civilisées, il existe un principe important qui s'appelle la "Présomption d'innocence". Tu imagines sinon ? On pourrait aussi supposer que ton but ici est de régler un vieux différend avec cette personne, et que toute ta stratégie consiste à exploiter un mauvais prétexte pour harceler cet ennemi ? Comment te disculper si COM:AGF est remis en cause? Soyons prudent et modéré avec les extrapolations de micro-bribes de textes aussi insignifiantes que celle-ci. Par ailleurs, même si tu es en désaccord avec une règle de Commons, celle-ci faisant partie des directives officielles, je crois qu'il est impératif de la respecter, pour un bon fonctionnement collectif. Chacun est maître de ses émotions, de son imaginaire et de ses spéculations, mais je suis quand même assez sidéré d'entendre tes suspicions par rapport à ce commentaire anodin, sur le fait qu'il puisse selon toi (si j'ai bien compris ton anglais) être déguisé de manière à tromper les lecteurs, c'est-à-dire ceux qui y verraient simplement un message neutre et indolore n'auraient en fait pas saisi la véritable intention de nuire, habilement dissimulée ? Oh la la.... Non seulement, rien n'est flagrant, mais en plus le niveau d'anglais et de négligence est lui-même facile à vérifier. Excuse-moi mais à ce stade, les craintes me paraissent plus que fantaisistes, plutôt délétères. Je ne vois pas non plus pourquoi COM:AGF serait davantage sujet à précaution dans ce cas plutôt plutôt que dans un autre. Je pense au contraire que cette règle à été rédigée précisément pour dissoudre ce genre de difficulté, en particulier. Enfin bon, peut-être qu'un jour on découvrira toute l'extraordinaire machination qui a été mise en oeuvre à notre insu, et qu'on tombera de haut face au niveau d'élaboration du piège machiavélique? En attendant, relax, Max ! (Carpe diem, mon ami ☮). Plus de méprise que de mal, à mon avis.
United States In our civilized societies, there is an important principle called the “presumption of innocence”. Can you imagine otherwise? We could also assume that your goal here is to settle an old dispute with this person, and that your whole strategy consists of exploiting a bad pretext to harass this enemy? How can you exonerate yourself if COM:AGF is called into question? Let us be careful and moderate with extrapolations of micro-snippets of text as insignificant as this. Furthermore, even if you disagree with a Commons rule, it being part of the official guidelines, I believe that it is imperative to respect it, for good collective functioning. Everyone is master of their emotions, their imagination and their speculations, but I am still quite stunned to hear your suspicions in relation to this innocuous comment, in relation to the fact that it could according to you (if I have correctly understood your English) be disguised in such a way as to deceive the readers, that is to say those who would simply see a neutral and painless message would not in fact have grasped the real intention to harm, skillfully concealed? Oh my.... Not only is nothing obvious, but the level of English and negligence itself is easy to check. Excuse me but at this stage, the fears seem more than fanciful to me, rather deleterious. I also don't see why COM:AGF would be more subject to precaution in this case rather than in another. On the contrary, I think that this rule was written precisely to dissolve this type of difficulty specifically. Anyway, maybe one day we will discover the whole extraordinary plot that was implemented without our knowledge, and we will fall head over heels in the face of the level of elaboration of the Machiavellian trap? In the meantime, chillax ! (Carpe diem, my friend ☮) More mistake than harm, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I don't mind opposes for cause or even simply e.g. "lack of wow". That's part of this process. Where I find myself getting a little annoyed is when people apply one standard to everyone else's photos that they do not apply to their own. Someone who almost exclusively votes oppose on other people's work while more than 75% of their own nominations fail (interesting stats here) is inevitably going to generate resentment. Does that mean they should be prohibited from voting? No, but I understand others' frustration. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are wrong about the 'amateur' part applying to me. I am in fact a professional artist, taught by Einar Jolin who in turn was taught by Henri Matisse. But hey, we all make mistakes. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, where's your Wikipedia article where we can add this photo? —kallerna (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your understanding of the scope of Commons? Also - as XRay pointed out, this is a wonderful example of a photography technique and can be added to all articles where this technique is mentioned. Kritzolina (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. to Intentional camera movement, and this photo would indeed be an excellent example for that article. Or to Wikibooks textbooks about photography, etc. But as Kritzolina has already pointed out, Commons has a far wider scope than illustrating Wikipedia articles. E.g. this photo would make a wonderful album cover or dust jacket illustration. Yes, Commons provides media for such uses, too. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to devalue art by amateurs? It's often amateurs who are involved in art. I myself am active here locally with many other artists - and they are all amateurs. I see no reason to see this in a derogatory way. I think the photos like this one are very valuable for our FP collection. They are the pictures that show that you can think outside the box. It's also pointless to always refer to Wikipedia here. Commons is not just for Wikipedia alone. BTW: Cart is a professional artist with excellent work. I really appreciate her pictures. --XRay 💬 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kallerna, like other users have pointed out, Commons is not just an image databank for Wikipedia articles. The images here also serve all the other Wikipedia's sister projects, see list here: Template:Wikipedia's sister projects. As an Admin you should know they exist. The images on Commons are also used by schools, museums, organisations, websites, newspapers, etc. outside the WikiProject, thanks to the generous licenses they are published under. For example, a similar dreamy photo I made is now used on the cover of a printed book, and the writer found it on Commons. I sometimes do searches online to see where my images are used on and outside Wiki, and it's really fun to see all the contexts they show up in. We frequently import images of art into Commons, is it really so outlandish to see that Commons also exports art out of the site? --Cart (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been around long enough to know these guidelines. I think I also have the right for my opinion, and as I've said, nowadays the bar for all qualifications for the images is too low. This photo is IMO not among the best images of Commons, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. You should have written this as an explanation for your vote, instead of lashing out. That way all these unpleasantries and comments would have been avoided. Your own opinion is valued and respected. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. This is a voting, not a therapy session. General outlook: It is not a surprise that the bar is lower and lower when opposing votes create controversy. Just support all nominations and others will support your nomination? —kallerna (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all “opposing votes create controversy”. The two votes which created controversy here missed any substantial reason and did not even provide any concrete allusions to the image; instead they just stringed together some interchangeable disparaging words. This is why they attracted critical comments. If you would have set forth why the intentional camera movement was not successful in this case, or not appropriate for the subject, or done in an insufficent manner etc., this would have been constructive criticism and we all had learned something useful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a decent conversation with Cart, why do you want to join and say my comment is shit? I also think supporting votes should have a reason if opposing do - there are lots of people here who don't know anything about the history of FP and support just about anything. This is now off-topic, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one said your comment was shit; anyone can join a conversation – this is Wikimedia, not a private chatroom. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) I agree that the bar for FP has been constantly lowered in the past few years, especially for artistic composition, as skilled photographers have given up. Emphasis has tilted over to the technical side, which, with today's cameras and size of photos is an almost academic discussion. I don't know about the second part of your comment though... Due to problem with my eyes I haven't voted on anything for almost a year. Instead I have dedicated my time to maintenance work on the site, and generally been a p.i.t.a. for many users. I fully expected this nom to be all about people venting their aggressions towards me in oppose votes. The strong support here has been something of a chock for me. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not sure interacting with the comments above is the best course of action, irrespectively of the underlying intentions. Feedback can be hurtful, even when it's not put crassly, but it's often a better learning tool than praise. Also, some languages sound more aggressive than intended when translated to English, so some leeway is necessary. And if the intention was pure shock value, well, as the old Internet adage goes, "don't feed the trolls". If things get out of hand and rules of conduct are broken, there's dispute resolution tools available. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to jump in here, I beleive your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but here you are stating two things here that are widely popular opinions that have been disproven scientifically. Criticism, especially crassly worded, harsh criticism, is not a good learning tool. It can actually hinder learning and often does. Praise is a much better learning tool. Also the rule of "don't feed the trolls" has been proven unhelpful and not stopping trolling in a number of research projects. Kritzolina (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not al all, thanks for jumping in. Can you point me to the scientific evidence you are referring to? My understanding is that modern psychological findings support the opposite. I found Jonathan Haidt's book, albeit focused on US college campuses, a good summary of the current state-of-the-art on this topic: [1] --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for linking this. In this kind of context praise vs criticism is only one of many facets of raising children. What we are talking about here on this site is the effect of criticism on adults who often are already experts in their field. I will be looking for some more specific articles, but currently travelling, so this might take a few days, as I will be very busy over the weekend. Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, whenever you have a chance. If you're not able to find adequate support (claiming that a theory has been disproven is a tall order, as it requires scientific consensus), I think it would be helpful for the discussion to retract the statement, or to change it to something more precise (e.g., "some studies suggest") --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, please bear in mind that being polite and being hurtful are not mutually exclusive. Personally I will take feedback in any shape or form it is offered, but others may find statements such as "I believe your intentions are good and I have seen many constructive comments by you, but" patronising. Cart, hopefully this tangent didn't take too much away from your amazing nomination. As one of the many amateurs on Commons, I'm glad to have the opportunity to interact with pros! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Julesvernex2, don't worry, it's not the first time a work of mine has sparked controversy. ;-) At least this time, the "storm" is just on a section of FPC and not a whole town. (yes, it has happened :-D). --Cart (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Julesvernex2, I am really sorry that I came across as patronising. This was not my intention and I want to ask your forgiveness for not taking more time to think about the impact this wording could have on you. And I totally agree, nothing can guarantee our words don't hurt others unintentionally. We still should try to choose words and phrases that have a smaller likelihood than others, but giving our different backgrounds and life experiences we all fail at times. Sorry again!
    If you want to discuss further on the praise vs criticism issue, I would suggest moving to the talkpage here, as this is not just about this nomination and the reactions of some users to it, this has a bigger scope. As an intro I suggest looking into this article, which clearly opens with the affirmation that "praise has long been recognized as an important form of social reinforcement" while "Criticism ... has been identified as a poor way to encourage better performance". It then goes on to differentiate more, which we also should do perhaps. Kritzolina (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for that, Kritzolina! As I mentioned above, no offence taken. Happy to continue the discussion on scientific evidence elsewhere, but I propose we stick to findings that are more recent than the one you provided, and that enjoy wide academical consensus. Much has changed in this field since the 80s, with much more to come as the replication crisis continues to make its way through empirical psychology. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question. I would assume that criticism should be concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful in order to serve as a good learning tool. Now the feedback we discuss here was neither concrete (it did not describe any concrete shortcomings of the specific photo) nor constructive (no hint was provided to what should be different or how one could achieve a better result) nor respectful (on the contrary, it appeared just disparaging). Is this kind of dismissive comments really helpful? Of course great people can learn from everything, but wouldn’t it in most cases much more successful to provide concrete, constructive and somewhat respectful criticism? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the best feedback is concrete, constructive and respectful. However, I don't think this is something that should be enforced, as everybody has the right to express an opinion how they deem fit (excluding ad hominem attacks and other nonsense, which are disallowed by the existing code of conduct). As I defended in another context, the more rules, restrictions and hurdles we put in place, the less diverse the nominations and votes will be. And we should perhaps give extra leeway for opposing votes, which are an endangered species around here :) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar, this is a single photograph. Doing ICM is actually a lot harder than it looks. Most people begin with just swiveling/panning the camera on a tripod. That way you get a feeling for what the movement does to the photo. When you are comfortable with that you can start doing free-hand moves. You set the camera so you'll get some time to move it, some photographers also use an ND filter to get enough time (I don't own such a filter).
When doing this free-hand, you can adjust the speed of the movement during the shot. You can have a small pause in the movement at the beginning, during, or end of the shot. Whatever you have in front of the camera during the pause, will get a bit longer exposure and look more distinct in the image. The result of these short pauses, will look like double exposure. For this scene, a long steady camera movement looks like this. In that shot I started a little lower and got some of the walkway too (the black at the bottom). To get the branches a bit visible, I went for a slower movement and started with a small pause, before moving the camera downwards. That did the "double exposure effect" you see here.
Mind you, it all had to be done in 1/6 sec (see EXIF) since it was done in daylight. I also used ISO 100 and f/29 to get some more time to do the movement. If you want to start testing this, the best time is at dusk or dawn. On this scene I did over 50 shots to get the movement right; only two were acceptable, the rest only looked strange and blurry. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, understandable, since most of the ICM photos you see are just smooth motions without the tiny pauses. I just like to try out as many aspects of a technique as I can. In theory, if you stretch the exposure time to say 10 seconds you can do move-pause-move-pause with the camera as many times as you like, and the result will look like a multi-exposure in a single shot. --Cart (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 32 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--SHB2000 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Trees_in_ICM_on_Myrstigen_hiking_trail,_Brastad_2.jpg&oldid=827282989"