Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Porsche detail amk.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Porsche detail amk.jpg, not featured[edit]
Info Detail of a Porsche car. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Support --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Question Do you choosed b/w because of the overexposed fender ? --Makro Freak 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- actually i chose it bcs i think the photo looks better in b/w --AngMoKio 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MartinD 09:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose overexposed -- Gorgo 12:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed --Bergwolf 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see any reason for this nomination --Karelj 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like old Porsche cars. The overexposed fender isnt nice --Makro Freak 08:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is your general opinion of the composition. I'd be happy to get a feedback concerning that. Concerning the overexposure I think it is not disturbing here - but I know tastes are different :) --AngMoKio 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Das will ich aber auch hoffen, du! :) :U :)--Makro Freak talk 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
