Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Panorama vom Frauenberg.jpg

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

Panorama vom Frauenberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2023 at 10:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, Germany
    Panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, Germany
  • Labeled panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, Germany
    Labeled panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, Germany
  •  Question May I ask for constructive criticism? The format is the only way eplaining the subject. What better way to add the intended information content to it than with text in the image? This text necessarily obscures some image content. At the same time, how can it be offered to hide this text as well, other than with a label-free version? --Milseburg (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am happy to support either one and agree that the format is well-suited for such a panorama, I just fear that Ivar is right about the (rather rigid) set rules. --Aristeas (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Ivar and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Then the rules should be expanded as long as it is here not technically possible to present such topics in an instructive way in another way. The easiest way would be to superimpose both images and display them optional with or without captions. Of course, then the two set more closely together than images of two frogs of different sexes. Now I really don't know which of the panoramas I should run individually or why both separately. Meanwhile the annotated version was significantly expanded in cooperation with the main author of de:Frauenberg (Hessen). --Milseburg (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose :
1. The picture without annotations :
  • Extreme ratio panorama. Thin like a ruler, like this one or that one. My appreciation of landscapes is usually not compatible with such long formats, when the eyes are blocked vertically.
  • Number of pixels aside, the landscape itself is not really special in my view.
2. The picture with annotations :
  • Language: German chosen. That makes the document quite unsuitable for Wikipedia in English and all other languages. Example: the first word is "Gladenbacher Bergland", while in English we say Gladenbach Uplands. The second word "Rothaargebirge", in English is "Rothaar Mountains, in Spanish Montañas Rothaar, in Japanese ロタール山地, in Russian Ротхаргебирге, in Arabic روتهار (سلسلة جبال), etc.
  • Units: meters and kilometers chosen. Miles and feet missing for the people who live in a country using a different unit system.
  • Font and text layout do not respect professional standards. Contrasted outlines missing, arbitrary / irregular punctuation spaces (example "Grosser Ahlertsberg 645 m,33 km"), etc.
  • Inappropriate font size. There are several different sizes of text, of different colors, and the smallest text (like "Hangelstein 305 m, 15 km", "Dannenrod" or "Wahlen") will not display well, given the giant width of the picture. I think even a poster will be hard to read. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you described the problems well but drew the wrong conclusions. I would like to link each label so that everyone reaches after a click the corresponding article in their own language. Can you technically realize this? Until then, the text is related to Germany because the vantage point is only described in detail in the German Wikipedia and is also located in Germany. Vertical limits? Be glad that there is no horizontal limit. A panorama board on site or virtually would have the same format. Rather, I considered a crop with an even more extreme aspect ratio. The geographically interesting content is all in the middle and not above or below, or even outside of the picture. One user on de:Diskussion:Frauenberg (Hessen)#Neues Panorama already complained that the volume was too large. A 360*180 panorama would be the wrong answer, but an even narrower section. The writing is different because it adapts to what is being described. Milseburg (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Disagree If this panorama was printed on a 1-meter large poster, then the word "Hasenkopf" (for example) would measure only 2.3 millimeters large!😮 Totally unreadable without magnifying glass. You can verify the image is 42.483 pixels large, and the word "Hasenkopf" covers 97 pixels only. Many other names like this one would be simply not legible. Sorry but that's a major typographic error that no professional would ever make in such a layout.
  2. Comparing the previous versions to the current one in the history, it appears that there were several (fixed) errors in the captions. Although German is not my mother tongue, it seems that these mistakes have also been pointed out by other users on the Wikipedia talk page. Here at FPC, we are photographers or image reviewers, but not specialists of this geography. How could we guarantee the text is accurate? This is not a picture coming from any professional administration -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, a 1 m printout of the panorama would be just as nonsensical as viewing the entire panorama in a strip adapted to the screen size. In order to set it up on site as a panorama board, it would be printed larger. It is correct that when attaching the label I took advice from the main author of the article de:Frauenberg (Hessen), who is familiar with the area, so that everything is correct and the educational benefit is high. I'm a bit disappointed that I have to fight a lot harder to get this effort recognized than in my previous FP candidatures, which are just beautiful images. I can also make it easy on myself and outsource the labeling like File:Panorama vom Schomberg.jpg or File:Panorama vom Schindlenbühl.jpg. For commons but poorer. Yes, I'm not a professional and I don't earn my money with photos. I'm participating here as an amateur and I think that's okay. Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nonsensical" => you seem not understand that the problem is the ratio. A text measuring 2.3 millimeters compared to a 1-meter image is ridiculously and excessively small. If you print 10 meters your pano, the same word measuring 2.3 cm will appear similarly tiny in comparison. That's why it's absurd: the font sizes are inadequate. Graphic designer is a profession that requires skills and sensibility to manage these aspects -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Anyone who sees a problem in the ratio has not understood this kind of photos. these panoramas are never meant to be viewed in their entirety. But you scroll from left to right and back. Just as you let your gaze wander in the landscape. In the full resolution, the caption can also be read well. What is the point of having a "normal" aspect ratio and then seeing billions of pixels of sky in return??? And the encyclopedic value is exactly the lettering for me.
  • I understand Milseburg's disappointment very well, because I made such panoramas myself and faced the same problems. On the one hand, you want to present a high resolution so that a lot can be seen. How can you reasonably include a font, which you can then hide again? Without lettering such panoramas are worthless. A caption in a language other than German is secondary, since the image is probably only used in the German wikipedia. Je-str (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This kind of very wide panoramas has a long tradition; just as they formed a special genre in the fine arts (mostly drawings and engravings, sometimes paintings), they form also a special genre of photography which has its own rules and merits. We cannot judge such a panorama using the composition rules from usual landscape photography; these are two related, but different things. Therefore IHMO it is not a good idea to reject panorama landscape photos because they do not offer a satisfying landscape composition. They just have their own kind of composition which is a bit more technical (if I may say so). Most other technical aspects of landscape photography apply also to such panoramas, e.g. sharpness, exposure, etc.; but regarding the overall balance of light and shadow one has to judge wide panoramas understandingly because in most cases it is probably unavoidable that large areas of such panoramas are in shadow. --Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is not an interactive map like Google Map you can zoom in and then reveal details that were not shown at another scale. And this is not a map where you should put everything inside until pointing the doghouse of the village pharmacist :-) There's a prior work of selection that is necessary, in my opinion. Scale is important. One is writing "these panoramas are never meant to be viewed in their entirety" and the other "In order to set it up on site as a panorama board, it would be printed larger". Who knows?! Now it's too heavy, too busy, and overloaded with text of different font sizes. Compare with other compositions of the same kind, that at least respect a minimum size of text, that is decent for the viewer. I don't see the point of being lost, immersed in a panorama of this dimension, without any visual reference to the whole. For us, reviewers, it is also impossible to spot the spelling error of "Alberg", for example, that is in fact "Allberg". Or "Weimar (Lahn)" -> "Niederweima". But everyone can spot photographic issues on a picture without text. Not the same deal. Certainly there are norms and conventions for annotated panoramas, that would be fair to follow. That's currently a big mass of data extremely hard to use, I'm afraid. As if you were navigating in the universe, discovering a planet called "Omega", but where is Omega exactly, how far, how big? No idea. Because if you zoom out, then you lose the subject, written too small. And even the location is all green -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Panorama_vom_Frauenberg.jpg&oldid=746969692"