Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Van Goghs Final View - Window by Attic Room Deathbed.jpg

Image:Van Gogh Final View - Window by Attic Room Deathbed.jpg, not featured

 Info Stairwell info at bottom
 CommentEdit by AngMoKio

•  Info created by John Kolter — uploaded by User:John Kolter — nominated by JohnKolter
•  Support JohnKolter 01:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilt, overexposed. Lycaon 09:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose — overexposed and purple fringing. I don't like the framing. Indon 10:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like framing, but I agree with Indon - Simonizer 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Indon. --Dschwen 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Informative, historical, interesting, and moving subject - capturing a moment in time like Van Gogh's final view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AngelicaH (talk • contribs) at 16:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture doesn't stand on its own; framing is strange and picture is a bit blurry and overblown/fringed. A better handling of backlighting would be needed. Roadmr 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Info I'm trying to understand some of the comments folks... Tilt? Either the window was built tilted or every house in the town was, and therefore I can't can't rotate the 4 degrees needed. Backlighting? This is a dank, dark, unlit attic stairwell, not a lab with invertebrate specimens and a controllable set of variables (and while I love those types of photos they do not present the challenges of an uncontrollable and imperfect real world). Getting a camera in there was a miracle and lighting equipment impossible. The framing is unusual but correct framing is impossible due to the structural confinements in stairwell and subject placement. The blurr and fringing is there, but occurred regardless of filters or settings used since the shot is through a very old and imperfect glass window. The historical significance was the whole point of the photo. One person noted that point, but will no doubt be zapped due to lack of log in. I fear that Wikipedia will lose many contributions, like the 100 plus shots I have of Van Gogh's room, because there was no way to take the 'perfect shot' due to the confines of the space. User:John Kolter
  • It is not because a picture doesn't get FP status that it is not valuable. I posted more than 200 'nice' photographs, I'm honoured if one or two reach FP status. The others are still valuable but don't conform to all the criteria for FP. I'm still posting... Lycaon 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback Lycaon, my ego was getting bruised. I spent hours on my belly getting some of these photos and then Wham, Oppose Oppose Oppose. I do wish some of the comments were more informative than 'framing' though. Getting a well framed picture in Times Square or Vincent van Gogh's attic is like trying to get a picture of Las Vegas Strip without casinos, hookers or lights - Impossible. Unfortunately, most of the subjects I find socially or historically interesting have terrible conditions for photos. User:John Kolter
•  Support I agree with John Kolter, and his line of thought is in line with what I have said many times. One of the motivators here is to promote an image as valuable, but there is a general lack of knowledge as to how to judge an image and what constitutes a valuable image. I posted the Guidelines for Evaluating Photograhs as an attempt to contribute, and although imperfect, they seem to go unread by most "judges" here. People must see beyond the picture. It is like looking through a window, you miss the landscape because a fly speck stains the glass. Any serious photographer will laugh at the ridiculous comments here, and yes, stay away for that very reason, thus depriving this forum of the participation of valuable people. To appreciate and to judge a photograph one must be informed, both technically and culturally, and that too can be accomplished. One must educate oneself. Nobody is born with the cultural capital, one acquires it. But one way NOT to acquire it is to think that one knows it all, as it seems to be the case here. Ignorance masked with pseudo photographic technical jargon. --Tomascastelazo 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Frustration is no reason for insults, Tomas. Lycaon 23:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, why would be frustated by reviewers comments? Above there are guidelines for evaluating photographs. 11 out of 12 bold items are technical, so it is common for reviewers here to judge picture more by its technical merits. Is this picture valuable? Certainly. Is this picture worth of FP? To me, I don't think so. Perhaps you would like to submit this picture at Wikipedia featured picture, if you think this is very valuable one. Indon 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Lycaon - Frustration, yes, I see too many good pictures get shot down for ridiculous observations without merit, that is my opinion. I also see tons of "pretty" pictures with no substance get promoted. To not like a particular image out of personal preference is ok, have no problem with that. But one must distinguish personal preference from the quality of the image itself. To illustrate, personally I do not like the appearance of hyennas, but to a biologist, they represent an element of the environment, food chain, etc., etc., and a hyenna is for the biologist a beautiful specimen. So what is valuable here? My opinion out of personal aesthetics that are culturally biased and influenced by my ignorance of the animal kingdom or the opinion of the biologist who appreciates the object as an important part of an intricate and delicate environmental system??? You tell me. Whose judgement would you take? As an observer, at least one must be aware of the cultural defficiencies one has and factor that into the judgement process, and if one can, bring oneself up to be able to understand the image. It is like poetry, if you do not speak the language how can you appreciate a poem? A photograph is like a poem, it has its own language. Personally in this forum, I do not oppose a picture if I do not like it or do not understand it. I only do it out of technical flaws or cultural reasons that I know to be wrong. Insults? Not my intention and my comments are not directed to anyone in particular, and I apologize if I hurt someone´s feelings. Blunt talk, yes. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, like saying things the way they are (at least for me). Likewise, I accept anything that anyone has to say about me, and accept the consequences of my opinions, and reserve the right for rebuttal. Heck, this can be fun, even if one disagrees. --Tomascastelazo 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment On the critical side... Aside the interesting historical reference... I would have taken the photograph vertically, aligned with the wndow. That way the frame would be "complete" and the edge of the oval not so close to the edge. --Tomascastelazo 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Tomascastelazo - I did at least 20 of the shots you describe. The result was the blackness of the wall overwhelming the half meter thick wall window tunnel's true brown stone texture (which I liked) turning it a dark gray. This affected the exterior colors making them hideous. Also, to get the complete frame, the camera had to be moved back a half foot, cutting the exterior perpective by two thirds, so all you saw was the roof of the house directly across.... a lesson in roof tiles and power lines. I can load a copy if you like - amazingly ugly. User:John Kolter
•  Oppose bad framing, really bad purple fringing.

  John Kolter: Sorry, but the technical reasons you give are really due to poor technique / equipement problems, not some unavoidable property of the subject. To get a complete frame and keep the exterior perspective exactly the same, you could a. change the focal lengt ("zoom") of the lens b. if its not possible with your camera, use wide angle convertor c. take several shots from a tripod and stitch them in some stitching software, i.e. hugin/panotools. If you properly set manual exposure, changes in compostition cannot affect colors. The purple fringing could be trivially corrected in a photo editor. Images like "looking through a window" are a prime case for HDR. And please don't take it as a discouragement, valiable picture is not the same thing FP.

  Tomascastelazo: IMO Commons are intended to work (more) like an image library, not an art gallery. Fine-art photography is not the same thing as stock/technical/documentary/commercial/... photography. To put it straight: I think you don't have that much understanding what constitutes a valuable image. For example, valuable commercial photograph is that one, which sells a product well. Whether it has some artistic value or not is completely irrelevant. "Pretty pictures" are for many purposes much more valuable than something artsy, technicaly weird, understandable only after half an hour of thinking and with academic training in history of visual arts. ...that's for the impression I get from some of your posts - that you evaluate photographs from the right viewpoint, and the rest of voters are mostly ignorants or idiots.

  The problem(?) with FPC is, various people look from different viewpoints, and its hard to satisfy them all. Some do look for pictures on first sight attractive, pretty and likeable, so they'll work well eg on Main page as POTD. Other put emphasis on informative and illustratitive value, another judge "craft" quality, technical perfection,... some brave souls even try to evauluate artiscic value. --Wikimol 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Support -- MartinD 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support although I'm wondering how hard it's going to be to count the votes. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed middleground and background and i don't like the framing norro 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Info Re: Supplemental photo for the record. I'm beginning to hate this photo Myself for all the trouble it's caused and it's My Photo! All I wanted was an image of Van Gogh's last view of the world before his tragic end. I add this additional image of the stairwaell not because I enjoy exposing myself to more criticism, but to show the horrible access conditions (and to explain the cause of the major headaches I got from banging my head on the stairs to get the shots). Also to show why some of the technical remedies were not possible, and to reiterate that no equipment (tripods, backlighting equipment, etc.) were allowed. Also re: perspective comments, the access to the almost 1/2 meter deep porthole window's inside edge was recessed almost a 1/3 meter in, making the distance from the inside wall to the glass exterior almost a meter. And re: stitching, editing, fringing (which was visable even to the naked eye, but I wanted a true shot, old glass and all) etc., I wanted this to be a realistic last glance image, not a Photoshop lesson. Thenks for all the feedback however - I'm listening and hopefully learning. JohnKolter
•  Support The history behind it makes it a FP (and it's not a bad image). Dori | Talk 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment I added a new version - the upright version. Apart some minor things i removed the black left and right borders as they disturbed. If it is a FP-worthy pic now i am not so sure. But i think it looks a bit more interesting. And the content of the photo is of value and for sure useable. I hope the house there is in reality also a bit leaning :) I wanted the framing window at least nearly straight --AngMoKio 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Info Question! I agree with comment below that this has become utter chaos. Is it OK to Modify someone else's work and change everything the creator wanted? The porthole is now neater at the cost of tilting an entire town, and the loss of the 'darkness' of Van Gogh's situation by cropping my photo simply to make it look prettier, tidy, balanced and sterile? Can I randomly go though and change other peoples work? Something is wrong here. Lycaon 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes John, they can, as long as they stick to the license (as was done here). That is the whole idea behind the licensing system on commons: the license you used (cc-by-2.5) says literally that you can (1) copy, distribute, display, and perform the work; (2) make derivative works; and (3) make commercial use of the work; on condition that you give the original author credit. Lycaon 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment This nomination is a chaos. I even think that's not a good idea to publish more than two versions of the same image on FPC at same time, but this one has three versions of same picture and also another picture that's not nominated!!! (I think... or is it?). My very humble advice: withdraw this nomination, choose only the one of the three (or four!) pictures you like more, and create a new nomination just with that. Regards. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like it...   ––odder 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Obviously the picture is not good enough in aesthetical and technical terms. The question is: does its historical and documental value justifies the promotion to FP? I think not. Alvesgaspar 08:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I'm afraid I don't find this picture either aesthetically or technically up to the standards required for FP status. I've no idea whether the houses shown were actually even there at the time of Van Goghs's death, but even if they were the picture doesn't seem to me to be of huge historical interest. No doubt every person who has ever died will have had a last view, very few of which will have been of sufficient intrinsic interest to merit a picture being taken. Sorry to be rather negative after all the effort that was clearly expended, but I really don't think this is FP material.--MichaelMaggs 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Info I have been informed by a kind and helpful gentleman that the correct procedure to stop a nomination is to state that I, as nominator, revoke my nomination, and it will then be removed ASAP. So, regretfully, even though this visit to the FP process has been a joyous one (somethink akin to an unanaesthetized evisceration, or a tooth extraction with a hammer and a pair of pliers), I hereby request such revocation, and beg that it be quick, mercyful, and painless. I have learned some and sufered much, but fool that I am, I am sure I will be back, and soon I fear. I have high hopes for Wikipedia, and sadly am addicted. Thanks to all who shared advice and info. JohnKolter

6 support, 10 oppose, nomination withdrawn → not featured Lycaon 08:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)