Commons:Featured picture candidates/te best green flash in santa cruz

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

Image:Green Flash in Santa Cruz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Green Flash

  • I feel sorry for you that you were not impressed by the image, but I'm very glad that you were able to learn something new. It was the idea: Let the image to stay here for few days that more people could learn something new. Thank you for letting me know you did. My time was not wasted!--Mbz1 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose because of quality. I'd add the size exceeds the requirement, but not the resolution. Benh 06:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - This picture was nominated in March 2008 and the old nomination section is now destroyed by the new one. Could you please roll everything back and create a fresh one with another name? Not a good idea to kill the reviewing history! -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What an amazing coincidence. I just went to check on my e-mail and found this:
    Hello,
    You were in contact with my colleague Khedidja Sdouga in 2006 then in 2007 about green flash images.
    The french scientific book will be at last printed in june 2008 (we had some technicals problems). Yes !
    I’ll mention “© 2006 Lyudmila Zinkova
    (http://home.comcast.net/~milazinkova/Fogshadow.html)” except if your web site had changed.
    I get back to you because I don’t have your mail address to send you the book when it will be printed.
    Thank you
    Sophie Leonard
    BTW my green flash image was also published in Coelum Astronomia in November 2006 and in Oregonian news paper. But why am I telling you all this? To soften your hearts to the image? Hardly. I know that here at Wikipedia Encyclopedia the most important thing is the quality of the image and of course the quality of the image is really bad. After all it is only one of the best images of green flashes ever photographed --Mbz1 13:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not because my heart can't be softened ;-), not because of the value of the image (it is a good picture of a rather rare phenomenon), but because we have to follow the rules for featured pictures that we have set ourselves. Yes value is important, but yes image quality is too. You can't bypass one or the other. Mitigation only goes that far. I know you do not really like opposes (nobody does), but I think you are just testing us again and again, not to soften our hearts, but to soften the rules. Most often your images are special and/or rare, but you don't seem to want to take the quality factor into account. Fp's are a nice recognition but not the only aim of uploading to Commons (Less than 2.5% of the 800 images I have on my gallery have reached FP status so far, and several have failed trying). Lycaon 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lycaon, I 'm not trying to "soften the rules", I am trying to enforce them. Remember "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I know I have no chance to succeed in enforcing that rulles not as long as a Marine Biologist opposes an underwater image taken under Antarctic ice anyway :=)--Mbz1 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess at that point it is about time to add FPX template ;-). Could somebody do it for me please? MichaelMaggs, maybe you could do it?. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For me it is clearly a featurable picture for it is the best I have ever seen of such a rare phenomenon that is not easy to snap because of the special dawn light and short duration conditions. According to the usual standards of course it is not a quality image but why should it be a problem for a FP not to be a QI : requirements are not the same. FP is not just a QI+. --B.navez 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ah this time I was able to vote before it was withdrawn :) I do not think the quality problems are that bad. /Daniel78 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mihael Simonic 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I can't understand why the quality is so poor. Where is the Exif file? -- Alvesgaspar 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really want to know why the quality is so poor, I'll tell you why, but let's keep it between the two of us. OK? :=) You can't understand why the quality is so poor because the quality is great. I mean it. Green flash photo, which shows not overexposed green flash and nor really dark flash, but reall y green one and some colors at the sky and the ocean at the same time are very, very rare. Most of the time the sky would be almost black and no ocean would be seen in order to get green color of the flash. Here's the story about taking of the image and here's the original file with the data you asked for: Image:Green flash in santa cruz original.JPG. Thank you.--Mbz1 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice capture of a difficult and rare subject. --Dori - Talk 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you seen the photographer is the same person and this selected picture is the best of the series ? --B.navez 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral >> not featured -- Ö 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/te_best_green_flash_in_santa_cruz&oldid=141881119"