Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reims Cathedral Organ, France - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Reims Cathedral Organ, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2015 at 11:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reims Cathedral Organ
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical instruments
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Is the main subject is the organ, should the category be changed accordingly? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support but the crop on the bottom is too tight - I would like to see also the 2nd stained glass window. Nevertheless excellent. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think the details below the organ were so interesting (below is the arch of the doorway, and then you might complain that the view is incomplete!) and I also didn't want the aspect ratio to be too high - already it is quite a tall image. What second stained glass window? The one behind the organ? It's not really visible from any angle, I guess it was designed before the organ was installed. I took this with my 70-300mm lens from the other end of the cathedral so getting further back to see behind the organ is not really an option. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question The west façade of Reims cathedral has two stained glass windows - the rose, and the one in the tympanon of the main door. I have looked for other images of reims cathedral, and this is not the west façade, maybe it is north or south? --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I dont like composition, at least could be croped to first horizontal line at bottom. --Mile (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is spectacular in my opinion --LivioAndronico talk 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very attentive work :) --Laitche (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - He's in your country, taking your cathedrals... hope to see some more French churches at FPC both here and on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Nice shot, is there a way to lighten up the bottom part? Poco2 09:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brightened the area of the organ case around the bottom of the pipes and below, I assume this is what you meant. It was a slight change but hopefully what you were thinking of? Diliff (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Support Yes, that is the area I was refering to. I would have probably been more generous with the brightening, but anyhow, FP to me. Poco2 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. It's a naturally dark wood so I don't want to mess with the way it looks too much. Yes, it's dark, but it's supposed to be. My opinion anyway. Seems that my opinion is more controversial than normal recently. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks for another great shoot and masterpiece for the David church book wow --The Photographer (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As they say around here, no wow for me. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't vote on my nominations in future. I feel our recent discussions have clouded your emotions and I have no faith whatsoever that you are able to judge an image of mine impartially. Diliff (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You most surely are joking! Lol! You told me in another thread that I do not know what you think, yet here you are doing the opposite with me!!! I vote my conscience, and while this picture is "technically" perfect, just like a life-like plastic flower, it has no aroma (wow in your lexicon). I see too many pictures of european or western culture themes, catering for western likes, perceptions and prejudices, like this one. The world is much larger than that and I think we should see more of it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again you are mistaking 'knowing' with 'believing'. I don't know, I simply believe you are not able to judge my images impartially. I'm not interested in discussing your ideas any further. Please just respect my wishes and we'll both enjoy our time here a lot more. Diliff (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I vote when I wish, how I wish, where I wish. Believe all you want, just like I do. I believe that we must realize that this forum is much like Hans Christian Andersen´s tale, where everybody pays lip service, but in the end, the emperor has no clothes. We should get there in order to move forward. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I get it, you do whatever the hell you want and nobody can stop you. Great, you're a megalomaniac. I'm asking you to stop voting on my nominations as a courtesy and to maintain a polite and positive environment for all. If you point blank refuse because you can do whatever the fuck you want, it is bordering on harassment and you are below contempt as far as I'm concerned. Diliff (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ask til the end of times if you want, but I cannot give into relinquishing a right, a privilege or whatever voting is called around here, according to the rules of the process, and I certainly will not give up my right to self expression in a subject that has been an important part of my life, photography, and I will call the shots from that platform as I please. If my vote throws you into a tantrum #REDIRECT[[1]], that is really your problem. I don´t have to like your photography, which is pretty good, but I have some reservations and opinions about it. Or what, do you just want people to vote support in your work? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tomascastelazo, I think in this oppose you are being churlish and have stepped into judging David rather than judging the image we have here. Have you actually opened it full-size and explored it? I agree that David's photographs are technical, clinical perhaps, but this is an approach to photography that is perfectly valid, and has its place (particularly on Commons). You and others may wish to imprint their own "aroma" on the captured/rendered image and that's another valid approach and one to celebrate. If David were photographing the mundane then one might find little wow. But goodness me, this organ! That window! You are, in my opinion, concentrating on the person behind the camera rather than the subject in front of it. While I agree that David cannot ask you to stop voting on his nominations (wouldn't we all like to get rid of awkward reviewers), you two have reached a point where there is too much red mist in front of your eyes. It is a good idea to take a wee break from judging the images of someone you are annoyed with. David, I could argue and shout for Scotland in the Olympics, and feel your pain, but this response isn't acceptable. Just both of you give it a rest, please. I've been there; it doesn't work. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Colin: You seem to overlook the fact that Diliff was the one who lowered the general discussion to this low by name calling and inuendos, attacking my person instead of focusing on the issues, he is getting the professional courtesy that he afford me. As far as his photograhy, I´ve never said that it is bad, it is pretty good, technically, but that does not make it a masterpiece every picture that he makes. Being a top photographer does not come cheap, either in the praise or the critique. Yes, I may be harsh in my critique, but he deserves nothing less, lest he get too comfortable in his ways and stops the quality of his contributions once he has attained a comfortable reputation and becomes the king that has no clothes on. His quality now is normal for him, and normal doesn´t cut it. There are many great still shots of many buildings and much offer of them, good is not good enough anymore. On the other hand, my personal preference in photography deals with more dynamic photography, almost on a phenomenological level, on the here and now, on the happening event, be it a human or a natural event. Classic european art or architecture is a thing of the past, the time of the great cathedrals is over. How many pictures of the great pyramids do we need, unless they afford a new and fesh view? Same with old churches or old paintings, mostly european or western civilization. That is not to say that we need nor record them, yes, we do, but they are past the threshold of originality. Too many good pictures everywhere of them, and one more is just one more... Now, in the past I argued so much about giving informed, objective evaluations, based on universal photography evaluation criteria and pointed out what I still consider an amateur way of support/oppose system and was chastized as a jerk and know-it-all, but the case is still the same, or worse, because we are in the same state of incompetence in general, where the wow factor became accepted reason to support or oppose. So, like the old saying goes, if you can´t beat them, join them... It is easier to hide the ignorance or lack of objectivity behind that way of voting than to give an honest opinion and be questioned and attacked. So, I think Diliff is a great crasftman, but I think that his arrogance gets the better of him sometimes. Count on me to express my opinions and yes, the wow factor for him, in my world, is much higher than for many more, but again, he deserves nothing less, a good photographer deserves harsh critique. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomascastelazo I think you are old enough not to begin your argument with "He started it!" :-) Moving on from the personal animosity on show, you raise some interesting points about how we should review. Are we reviewing here the image on Commons or reviewing Diliff's nomination like one would a pupil? If the latter, your approach of ratcheting up the standard you hold him to is perfectly reasonable, and giving gushing praise to the weak efforts of beginners might also be reasonable. I take the approach that here we are reviewing a image on Commons. I believe if you want Diliff to stretch into new photographic styles, to put some soul in his photos, have suggestions for improvement, or criticisms of his personal portfolio, then that's probably better done on his talk page.
I agree that review at FP is largely down to (a) does it have any technical flaws [ranging from the reasonable to the ridiculous pixel peeping and unreasonable demands] and (b) does it have any wow [artistically, technically, or in the subject]. We very much lack the education on and language for photographic or artistic criticism, and many reviewers simply don't oppose because they are unable to express their feelings or don't wish to argue about them. I don't see any easy solution to that since we have the community we have, which is composed of amateur photographers rather than art students.
Should FP stop featuring new images of subjects where we have plenty already (or raising the bar very high for), as you seem to suggest? I don't think that's a helpful approach. Yes Commons's featured images are heavily biased to the sort of photographs an amateur photographer might enjoy taking: buildings, landscapes, birds, plants, insects, cities. You aren't, by opposing images of cathedrals say, going to start making people take photographs of people or photographs in other parts of the world.
There's an argument that photographing a work-of-art like this organ/window, should be done like photographing a painting -- there should be no evidence of the photographer and instead the effort should be to present the wonder of subject with accuracy. This photograph does that, and to a quality level that would be more than acceptable for professional use. The world does not, in fact, have a surfeit of photographs of cathedral interiors at the standard we see here, never mind also freely available for anyone to use for any purpose. Such works may not fill you with inspiration, but they are a part of our cultural heritage and recording them here, freely, is very much what I believe Commons should encourage and reward. It only takes an event like this to realise how much can be lost in a few hours, and we are left with only photographs, most of which are poor quality and copyright restricted. -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tomascastelazo: I think you should closely look at the picture and try to find an error, thus improving everyone. The wow factor is subjective and maybe you're making a sincere vote, however, I believe that due to recent events, no one will believe that. Try to make as some malicious users do seek subjective technical errors that are more difficult to combat, such as "the lighting is not adequate," "color space is not correct", "the image is overexposed to right "," Why ISO 400 "," F 7.1 is too "," Contact information in the metadata is poorly formatted, "" the latest version has less detail than the first, "any of the above would have been a little questionable reason however, envy is not. PD. "The Beggar"? That was mean :( --The Photographer (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ The Photographer I quote you: "Tomas, what do you think about this image ?, wow for you? or maybe the size is not big --The Photographer (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)" So I took the time to see who throws this type of poop at me and I find out that it is from someone who asks for money so he can "contribute" to write this kind of crap in Wikipedia, hence The Beggar... I really do not know if it is worthh my effort to have any type of xchange with you... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to get myself involved in a detailed discussion with you again Tomas, because I can see now that it's completely pointless and we'll get nowhere. But what I just want to say is that it seems your unwillingness to engage with anyone in a proper discussion is the problem here. Certainly it's the problem I have with you, but I'm guessing that others feel similarly frustrated. When someone asks you a question or otherwise prompts you for a response, you seem to either ignore it or you answer a different question to the one that was asked, and you frequently turn it around on them and make personal. Regardless of The Photographer's character, background, history etc, he asked a valid question. You might not agree with the question, its validity, or the way he asked it, but to dismiss it with an attack on his character that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion is petty and unhelpful and more likely than not to inflame the situation. I certainly feel that's how things progressed in other discussions I've had with you. Anyway, just my two cents. Take it or leave it. Either way, I'm not going to respond to insinuations that I'm throwing a tantrum or the petty insults you throw at me, etc so please spare everyone the trouble. Diliff (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first two sentences, Photographer was simply trolling and accusing Tomas of envy. So he got a verbal punch in the face, which is understandable. -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If punches in the face were acceptable responses to trolling, verbal or otherwise, Tomas would have got a lot more from me than he did. I'm not sure that bringing up something irrelevant to the situation by way of investigating his character is 'understandable' though, really. The picture of a penis that he linked to was obviously not relevant or understandable either, and he has apologised for that. I'm not holding my breath for an similar apology from Tomas though. Diliff (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here have fallen into the trap of being drawn into the emotions. I made a disrespectful comment, I apologize for that, I just felt very upset by the behavior of Tomas, however, that is no excuse for making a rude comment. Not everyone can be as methodical, calculating as Colin, or hypocritical as other users. Tomas, I apologize with regard to my comment with a picture of a penis, I think I got carried away by the great need to defend David, who I consider me a true fan (I just like his images of churches ). This issue has entered a field that seems a fight of children driven by the inner feeling of envy. Here some are determined to be envied quality images and others, however, while the quality of envy Tomas David, David envy the quality of Alves and Alves but Colin's Colin Thomas. So this is a chain of mutual envy, we fail to recognize that each of us is unique with unparalleled quality better than anyone. And beyond that envy that deep is love. If together we understood this, and if we were smarter emotionally, we could do something good together, sending the WMF the devil. However, anyone is interested in this circus, Mexican novels keep happening, they suck our energy and our work. --The Photographer (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fabulous detail of the organ and stained glass above. The lighting is perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if there was no better photograph of this outstanding subject. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Musical instruments
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Reims_Cathedral_Organ,_France_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=160914184"