Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tetraeder zur blauen Stunde, Bottrop - 0402B.jpg

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

File:Tetraeder zur blauen Stunde, Bottrop - 0402B.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2023 at 18:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
The photo consists of two shots, a 35 mm shot of the industrial monument and a 400 mm shot of the moon. Therefore I have included the retouched template. The 35 mm shot can also be found here on Commons and is linked in the description box as a different version. --Anil Ö. (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support That's very symbolic! JukoFF (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A composite rather than retouched and this type of artistic manipulation is not my idea of FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Are the sculpture and the full moon shots taken on the same night and from the same viewpoint? In a couple of the other related photos, there is a crescent moon. There are no dates other than the year and no exif data, so it's hard to know how the image has been made. You are of course welcome to nominate composite images, but in that case the gallery should be "Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other". This is what I'm trying to sort out. --Cart (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned below, the moon can't be this big at the focal used to shoot the tetrahedron so it is not a composite of the same photo at the same viewpoint (well could be the same standing point, but then not the same fov) - Benh (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above it is a 35 mm shot of the monument and a 400 mm shot of the moon. --Anil Ö. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of us here understand that this is a compo/merge, I was only being more polite and give the photographer a chance to explain things. Oh well, so much for the diplomatic approach, I'm changing the gallery. We are allowed to create (and nominate) all sorts of merges and composite photos, as long as the process is declared and the file is in the right category!gallery. It is a shame though, that this photo has been spread to so many of the Wiki-projects as an actual photo. --Cart (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, how do you put two actual photographs in the "Non-photographic media / Computer-generated" category? When I look at them, this has nothing to do with it at all, is pretentious and simply wrong - please just compare what files are in this category. If you think it's a shame that this photo is used in wiki projects, feel free to change it and even submit a deletion request if necessary. --Anil Ö. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FP gallery is not a perfect system. We don't get many composite photos nominated at FPC, since they can often be seen as misleading. Granted, the "Non-photographic media / Computer-generated" could have a better name, but it is the place where the composites go, even if those are made from photographs. If more composite images became FPs, a new gallery could be created for them. The term "computer-generated" is to to make clear that the image is made in a different way from those where the photographer waited patiently for the right moment to photograph the moon at some precise location, like in this or this or this. Composites marking a timeline in some way are put among the other photos, since it is very clear what the photos represent. Some such can be found in this gallery.
And yes, you mentioned the two lenses you had used for this image, but on Commons and especially on FPC, you have to be super clear about how the photo was made, since many of the people seeing this image and reading the description, are not photographers. The mention of xx mm and xxx mm will just pass them by. Placing the image in the right categories and galleries will also help prevent misunderstandings by non-photographers.
Sometimes composites and digital manipulations can slip through, despite all precautions. Like when this photo won the US WLM in 2016. We are all a bit paranoid after that. ;-) Hence the strong reactions here. --Cart (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above it is a 35 mm shot of the monument and a 400 mm shot of the moon. --Anil Ö. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 It was not my intention to deceive anyone, so I had linked to the original below the image and referred to digital editing. I note with regret that it is a shame that this image is used in wiki projects and reject that it is "non-photographic or computer-generated media". I will nominate the original as FP with the reasonable assumption that it will be rejected anyway. --Anil Ö. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tetraeder_zur_blauen_Stunde,_Bottrop_-_0402B.jpg&oldid=788023317"