Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris July 2011-35.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Paris July 2011-35.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2011 at 09:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info A natural complement to the existing FP, which was shot from the other side (southeast). The lighting is probably not as good but the compostion and the sky are more interesting imo. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)- Support I love Paris. --MyCanon (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Ahah ! Fallait passer me voir !--Citron (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Peut-être l'année prochaine, j'en suis pas sur. On pourra faire un double workshop: sur les photos ... et le pinard français! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dans ce cas-là, j'en suis ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Peut-être l'année prochaine, j'en suis pas sur. On pourra faire un double workshop: sur les photos ... et le pinard français! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Would be nice if you could provide additional information on your settings via {{Photo Information}}. How many images were taken to stitch the current resolution? What software did you use? Reminds me of Where's Wally?. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Done -- The stitching process destroys the Exif info and I had no idea that such template existed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Alvesgaspar, but in comparison of your below comment of the climbers in Dordogne (you called "uninteresting composition"), I'm not sure you show us here an "interesting composition". There are dozens of dozens of this picture all around by the post-card sellers, and this "composition" is especially boring IMO. I think there is no "composition" at all... Nothing new, nothing original, no wow.--Jebulon (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is not an original composition and you are right that it has already been shown in thousand of postcards. But the purpose here is to produce a high quality and high resolution depiction of the subject, using a balanced composition. A conservative view, in other words. Whether it is good enough for reaching the peaks of FP (like Benh's photo) is another thing. Anyway, I'm tryng to be coherent with my own rules (especially #8)... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- In life, being coherent with our "own rules" is the very least we can do... This picture is nice. But should it be FP because of size ? Anyway, you are a good rhetorician, my friend...--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, is it really? It depends of course of the rules but sometimes it is the hardest thing there is! That is why people tend to adhere to pre-formatted moral and ethic codes: they are much easier to follow! Coming back to our little world here, I think you should oppose the nomination (like I did). You have already been didactic (#5), now you can be ruthless (#7) and brave (#8). You were right, the talk is sometimes much more interesting than the pictures :-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- In life, being coherent with our "own rules" is the very least we can do... This picture is nice. But should it be FP because of size ? Anyway, you are a good rhetorician, my friend...--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is not an original composition and you are right that it has already been shown in thousand of postcards. But the purpose here is to produce a high quality and high resolution depiction of the subject, using a balanced composition. A conservative view, in other words. Whether it is good enough for reaching the peaks of FP (like Benh's photo) is another thing. Anyway, I'm tryng to be coherent with my own rules (especially #8)... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Alvesgaspar, but in comparison of your below comment of the climbers in Dordogne (you called "uninteresting composition"), I'm not sure you show us here an "interesting composition". There are dozens of dozens of this picture all around by the post-card sellers, and this "composition" is especially boring IMO. I think there is no "composition" at all... Nothing new, nothing original, no wow.--Jebulon (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 21:49, 28 Augut 2011 (UTC)
Oppose tight crop in the bottom and the lighting condition can be better.. ie. in a sunny weather will have better contrast between sky - tower. Since it is a trivial subject it is easy to have a better version of it. Ggia (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)- Oppose Uninspiring composition, bad lighting --Muhammad (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting is unfortunate. --Jovian Eye storm 11:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- OpposeI agree with Muhammad and Jovian.RohG ??· 15:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Stryn (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Another oppose (Nothing against you, I like giving my opinion on pictures of Paris). A bit too crowdy to my tastes, and not perfectly centered (this is noticeable even on the thumbnail). This is not acceptable on an architectural and trivial shot like this one. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
