Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DSCF0003.jpg

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

Image:DSCF0003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created by Christian Werkmeister / Christine Apel - uploaded by Werkmeister - nominated by Romary

There are very few black and white nominated. I like this woman portrait. --Romary 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Romary 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose very weird focus, unnecessary white border. Lycaon 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Image clearly posterized when seen in full resolution. This kind of focus is (or was) more or less common in women portraits and doesn't bother me. Alvesgaspar 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Strongly opposed – the awful histogram explains the steps in the grey scale : the picture was edited in a very bad way, trying to get a brighter subject which still remains far too dark (the brightest pixel value is around 192!!) ; non encyclopaedic picture, it isn't even used and WP is not a gallery for personal « artistic » work (if I did care, I would even propose it for deletion…) ; secondarily, what is that file name « DSCF0003 » ? Sting 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice protrait. Maybe to smooth. I can not understand why you would even delet such a nice portrait. Does Commons not accept great portraits because they look too good (artistic)?! No—Commons is not only a place for dry and correct product pictures. Metoc 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clap with the two hands for a nice portrait here in WP, but for one that has an encyclopaedic value because WP is an encyclopaedia (shoot by a famous photographer, showing a famous person…). Obviously this one hasn't the requirements : poor technical quality, poor format quality and like I said, it isn't even used in an article. Because of this last, where is the interest to keep it here ? Sting 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in WP but in Wikimedia Commons. Encyclopaedic value is greatly appreciated, but not required. Berrucomons 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encylopaedic value is not mentioned at COM:SCOPE, the only thing it mentions about this is in the first sentence "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects.". It's kind of vague, what do targeted really mean ? Or is this more clearly stated elsewhere (I have not looked very thoroughly) ? I see this issue popping up from time to time here. /Daniel78 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This also means that files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." So everything that's ok according to the wikimedia project scope is welcome here as well too which means "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." [1] -- Gorgo 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeNice protrait with no VALUE.--Mbz1 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose the editing was too harsh. Berrucomons 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It doesn't convince to me. The picture is too blurred --Drow male 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support if the border is removed and the file renamed to something useful. Good composition and pose. This picture does have value. It shows all sorts of photographic techniques for portrait photography: Black and White and the resulting emphasis on tonality, soft focus to smooth skin blemishes and for artistic effect, and a good example of a pose that has expressive emotion. The posterization effects are barely visible at 100%, so they don't concern me. -- Ram-Man 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Ram-Man. I think it is problematic to argue that an image has "no value". For whom? I agree that the file name is a disaster--Christoph Michels 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose You need to reedit the image from scratch using your original and a much more precise filter because the shades of greys are really bad, as seen in the histogram (the bluring effect comes from artificial reconstruction of gray shades by the dispersion of pixels, but this is at the price of lot of noise, that would have been avoided using a much better filter, computed in one step and not multiple lossy steps as it was done here). Look also at the missing focus on eyes and on lips (plus the articificial lines on the right of lips that are extremely damaging to the quality, even at low resoltuion where it is immediately visible). And of course you need to load your new image with a descriptive name, and propose this image here for deletion... (It is significant that you have not even been able to provide a description of your image here or in its description page!). The intended subject is extremely important! Verdy p 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, at least until someone gives me an example of an article this picture could be used on. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)  Neutral. I agree it could be used, but it still doesn't give me a wow factor. Ben Aveling 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:DSCF0003.jpg&oldid=6052989"