Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stampe SV.4 D-EBHL OTT 2013 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Stampe SV.4 D-EBHL OTT 2013 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2013 at 19:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Abstain as author. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Barcex (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose shallow depth, not my thing --Pava (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, not Italian, I know. :) — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think enough to argue my reasons to avoid certain ridiculous insinuations, you have no right to belittle the opinion of a user in the eyes of others only because they do not share his opinion. Remember that we are here on FP, here there should be only the best images at a high level, almost perfect from many points of view, and this for me is incomplete, there are many more photos of this aircraft best suited to FP and I i did not vote against it. For picture quality but not suitable for FP, this is the selection QI. and in any case vote (and voted) in favor of many photographs not Italian, if it's any consolation. --Pava (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Many" as in one (in the last three months). I know that this photo is not perfect. I gladly take any opposing vote, I might even, in the long term, be more thankful for opposing votes that pointed out a flaw in the image compared to supporting votes because they improve future photos I take. The only reason I made the comment above is not your critique or your vote, it's the fact that about 90% of your votes (not all of them, that's true) follow a very simple, very transparent pattern. And this pattern is, in my opinion, detrimental to the process of FPC in general. I point this out on my own nomination because I don't want to mess up anyone else's nomination. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- a photographer does not stop to take pictures just because I will constructively critical his creation, rather it only leads to better himself, I do not spoil anything, I will be hard but maybe this is the best selection for images. If there is an image I made the right vote, unless the vote is because it already has 15 more votes and my vote is useless. I just try to go in FP the best images, and (although it has appeared presumptuous) I tell my criticisms, however, that it is my opinion, then everyone thinks as he wants, I do not think I ruined my vote, since you have many no votes, but I do not agree with mica I prevent them from voting. However, I have voted more than one this month, it is not my fault here propose to all, there are intermediate grades, this select the best images for me is just to be rigid. However, it does not seem appropriate to continue this discussion so it is a little 'controversy and I fear that will not lead to anything. Also because I do not want to offend absolutely no creative.--Pava (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Many" as in one (in the last three months). I know that this photo is not perfect. I gladly take any opposing vote, I might even, in the long term, be more thankful for opposing votes that pointed out a flaw in the image compared to supporting votes because they improve future photos I take. The only reason I made the comment above is not your critique or your vote, it's the fact that about 90% of your votes (not all of them, that's true) follow a very simple, very transparent pattern. And this pattern is, in my opinion, detrimental to the process of FPC in general. I point this out on my own nomination because I don't want to mess up anyone else's nomination. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think enough to argue my reasons to avoid certain ridiculous insinuations, you have no right to belittle the opinion of a user in the eyes of others only because they do not share his opinion. Remember that we are here on FP, here there should be only the best images at a high level, almost perfect from many points of view, and this for me is incomplete, there are many more photos of this aircraft best suited to FP and I i did not vote against it. For picture quality but not suitable for FP, this is the selection QI. and in any case vote (and voted) in favor of many photographs not Italian, if it's any consolation. --Pava (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, not Italian, I know. :) — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Qflieger (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Shallow depth and spirit depth, exactly my things. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- weak oppose Maybe I am spoiled by your other aircraft FPs but imho this one is not outstanding enough. You have demonstrated several times that you can definitely photograph these old aircrafs very well - for me your image editing abilities are nearly without any flaws. But a high quality photo of a subject is not enough for FP. With your other FPs you added some additional value: perfect moment, perfect light, perfect mood. This is missing here. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Tuxyso. Julian has set the bar real high. --Ivar (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Tuxyso and Ivar: Thank you. I'll see what I can do to reach that bar again. If only there was more time and more airshows. :) — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination per above. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
