Weak Oppose I am not comfortable to see too many PR photos published here and promoting every one as FP is also ridiculous, since the superior quality of such professionally taken and elaborately doctored pictures is beyond question. Like the inner view below, this image is also a composition and should be marked as retouched picture / composition. But after that I would support, since this time it is not completely unnecessary, to replace the background. --Curnen (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Also saying that not too many professional pictures should be promoted is bull. We should be happy that the project attracts professional contributors, and honor their work according to its quality. FP is not a photography contest for amateurs, it's a collection of our best pictures, and this is certainly one of them. -- JovanCormac13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could just strike out factually wrong arguments, and all the per curnen votes of people who got fooled? Unfortunately most of the voters seem to be drive-by voters, not giving a crap about what happens to the nomination after they voted. Too bad. --Dschwen (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, Dschwen, but regardless of your merit here, I think your current behavior is a little dishonorable. First of all, you a free to explain to me, why certain light effects I already pointed out in the discussion with Niabot are well explainable assuming a single shot. Please do this - but unless somebody resolved all doubt, I think my opinion is as eligible as yours. Secondly I like to remind you, that the photo below has obviously been composed out of multiple shots, so I believe, some doubt is also legitimate here. Thirdly, photos in general just can't be judged solely by factual criteria - not even the level of image noise, that is still acceptable. But if you think for example of composition, there simply is no right or wrong. You will probably agree that some amazing pictures are superior, BECAUSE all usual rules of composition have been broken. "I like it" and "I don't like it" are equally wrong or right, because its the individual reception. The last thing: If I got this right, you seriously asked for deletion of votes, simply because the come from people with sporadic activity ? I hope, you have been kidding - because if there is one basic principle commonly accepted in in all democratic systems it the equal counting of votes ! --Curnen (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this from: you seriously asked for deletion of votes, simply because the come from people with sporadic activity. This again is complete non-sense! I'm fantasizing about striking factually wrong arguments (which is obviously not going to happen!). The drive-by voting is only an issue because people seldomly come back to react to the debunking of inaccurate statements they based their votes on. So please read a little more carefully before you paraphrase my statements. I'm really not in the mood for a squabble here, but no, your "opinion" is not eligible here. Facts are not a matter of opinion. And not calling a wrong statement wrong is not a matter politeness. In fact pointing out a wrong statement is is not a little dishonorable, it is the opposite! What's dishonorable is stating an opinion like a fact: this image is also a composition, misleading other voters, and essentially destroying an FPC. The photographer already explained the technique used to shoot his images. So you "light effects" statements have the value of a conspiracy theory. --Dschwen (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in the worst case my conspiracy theory is responsible for four oppose votes, the eight other opposers did name other reasons. But Ter890, H005 and Jacopo Werther all voted here at other candidates after Niabot pointed out, that he is sure, that this is no composition and could have changed their votes, if they wanted. So both positions were present in the discussion and I think nobody got fooled, but only convinced by either side. Therefore I do also not see any responsibility of mine for essentially destroying an FPC - essentially destroying FP for example is, when point'n'shooter pictures have not the ghost of a chance here anymore regardless of the photo itself - but this another topic. But as a conciliatory proposal: I will take a one month break here after this discussion is closed and during this time you may nominate as many pictures as you want, without spanner in the works. --Curnen (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat missing the point. I do not want you to take a break, I want you to be careful what you state as "fact" when you vote. --Dschwen (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThis is no composition! What he used (we talked with him on german wikipedia [1]) was a camera system like this one [2] which is pretty common for such photographs. No need for a composition, just move the car and the camera at once and have the men inside the car sit calm, while you take a shot over alike 15 Seconds. --Niabot (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No composition? The arrangment of the car on the road shouldn´t be "randomly", so there must be a composition in those pictures. This doesn´t mean that those advertising pictures are done with a little help from photoshop ;) --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Like the inner view below, this image is also a composition and should be marked as retouched picture / composition." You completly misunderstood. --Niabot (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are talking about two different things here. Niabot is referring to the fact that the image is not composed of two or more separate shots, whereas Andreas is talking about the composition as in "the use of space within a photograph", ie. the visual arrangement of elements within the image. -- Petritap (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but I was talking about this being a composition of two separate shots. Although it is well done and not as obvious as in the photo below, I still think it has been composed out of two or more images. This mainly because the reflection of the sun in the VW sign or the warm light on the front of the car tells me, that the car has been lit by the setting sun from the front. But when you look at the building in the background, the strong light there does not really look like a reflection on the glass, but rather like the sun shining through the building from behind ! Even if this would be a reflection, you would expect the reflection beeing blurred by the panning of the camera. I have never ever had a star shaped highlight in a panning shot, also the shadow below the car does not fit, if its really and solely lit by the sun from the front - so I am still convined, that its a composition or has at least a fake highlight. In general: Don't get me wrong! I do appreciate the decision of Michael de Vries, to share his pictures very much and again the quality of this picture is beyond question to me. But I have seen fantastic images fail here, because of some noise or a dust spot or a slight haziness somewhere that unfortunately resulted in scaring off talented photographers. Whereas in this case, some of you seem literally to court de Vries and forget about the usual alertness. --Curnen (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nearly the same effect, but other technique
That's the reason why the car is moved. It gives smother shadings, softer reflections, much blured shadows since it has the same effect as if you would aply filters, that keep the edges of the car sharp. If you want, i could render you an comparable scene with motion-blur and fixed object-camera-setting, which would show exactly the same behaviour. Keep in mind, that is not the usual setting with a driving car and an motionless environment. It more like this shot on the side. --Niabot (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert so I can't tell whether or not this is a composite image. But to me, it doesn't matter in this case. It's a professionally executed advertising photo and it is obvious to me that some professional techniques were used. It is not a documentary photo portraying, say, some historical event or the characteristics of some species of arthropod. If it were, then I would expect "pure" photography. -- Petritap (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, but why then remove the tag? The website of a firm that provides such camera-rigs even shows examples of how it this done and pre-retouched images (http://www.move-n-shoot.com/slideshow_e.php?bildnummer=16 for a car example, and many others in the slideshow). The image of the rig needs to be removed. Therefore I think the retouched template should be re-added. My guess is the rig was just to the right of the front left of the car. -84user (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Michel de Vries - uploaded by Christian Giersing - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose, unconvincing composition. Airwolf (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, Dschwen, but regardless of your merit here, I think your current behavior is a little dishonorable. First of all, you a free to explain to me, why certain light effects I already pointed out in the discussion with Niabot are well explainable assuming a single shot. Please do this - but unless somebody resolved all doubt, I think my opinion is as eligible as yours. Secondly I like to remind you, that the photo below has obviously been composed out of multiple shots, so I believe, some doubt is also legitimate here. Thirdly, photos in general just can't be judged solely by factual criteria - not even the level of image noise, that is still acceptable. But if you think for example of composition, there simply is no right or wrong. You will probably agree that some amazing pictures are superior, BECAUSE all usual rules of composition have been broken. "I like it" and "I don't like it" are equally wrong or right, because its the individual reception. The last thing: If I got this right, you seriously asked for deletion of votes, simply because the come from people with sporadic activity ? I hope, you have been kidding - because if there is one basic principle commonly accepted in in all democratic systems it the equal counting of votes ! --Curnen (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
