Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Commodore64.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Commodore64.jpg, not featured[edit]
Nominate
LoopZilla 10:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 10:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Support funky! --Quasipalm 15:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Avatar 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Hautala 16:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Pabix &; 11:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Oppose lighting norro 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont like the white background. --Malene Thyssen 12:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You don't like the white background, but its good enough for the credit card photo media:Credit-cards.jpg you supported? ADSR6581 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I know I'm not beeing very consistant :-( Commenting photos I guess is very subjective and english is not my first language so I apologize if my comments sometimes sounds a bit rough. In this case its hard to explain why I opposed this pic and supported the pic of the creditcards - I think it has something to do with mixing styles. The old keyboard looks a bit funny in my eyes with the shining white modern looking background. I hope this explanation makes just a little sense - I'm not commenting the photos with the goal to annoy anyone or hurt anyones feelings. Regards Malene Thyssen 19:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but opposing just because of a white background is tenuous at best. What colour should it be? All the pictures of objects (old computers mainly) I take have white backgrounds. This is so it can be used without a thumbnail box around it. For example: [1] I also do it because it makes the picture look more professional. If I had left the original background, it wouldn't have even got nominated... If you had a technical problem with the picture, then fair enough, but because it has a white background... Seems a little unreasonable to me. ADSR6581 20:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that taking photos of computerparts must be a challenge - I know I wouldn't be as succesfull as you in that matter! And in most cases I agree with you about the white backgound. This photo is not bad, it's just not exceptionally good in my eyes (and I think features pictures should be that). But maybee I have misunderstood the requirements to featured pictures candidates and judge too hard? Regards Malene Thyssen 20:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but opposing just because of a white background is tenuous at best. What colour should it be? All the pictures of objects (old computers mainly) I take have white backgrounds. This is so it can be used without a thumbnail box around it. For example: [1] I also do it because it makes the picture look more professional. If I had left the original background, it wouldn't have even got nominated... If you had a technical problem with the picture, then fair enough, but because it has a white background... Seems a little unreasonable to me. ADSR6581 20:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I know I'm not beeing very consistant :-( Commenting photos I guess is very subjective and english is not my first language so I apologize if my comments sometimes sounds a bit rough. In this case its hard to explain why I opposed this pic and supported the pic of the creditcards - I think it has something to do with mixing styles. The old keyboard looks a bit funny in my eyes with the shining white modern looking background. I hope this explanation makes just a little sense - I'm not commenting the photos with the goal to annoy anyone or hurt anyones feelings. Regards Malene Thyssen 19:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You don't like the white background, but its good enough for the credit card photo media:Credit-cards.jpg you supported? ADSR6581 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think the parameters of what is a good picture needs to be discussed in some depth, but that should be saved for the discussion page. In relation to my picture, I know it isn't the best. It was the best I could do without a digital SLR camera. Personally, I feel you have a been a bit hard, but I'm sure people have thought that about some of my votes too. :-) ADSR6581 21:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I guess it's always difficult to accept when other people judge ones artistic work - especially when the judgement is a bit harsh (I know that from own experience ;-). I'll try to be not quite so meticulous in the future :-) Regards Malene Thyssen 22:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I also become pretty stressed when I cant fully express myself in English. So I understand Malene. --PedroPVZ 20:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support Andreas Tille 06:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Janne Karaste 09:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support -PedroPVZ 20:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It • 15:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too dull. --Erin (talk) 13:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay... May I ask as to why it is "too dull"? ADSR6581 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you want detail, fine. It's a very boring, uninteresting subject. The focus is out, the lighting isn't strong enough, and whilest I appreciate it is a difficult thing to take a good picture of, it is just not FP worthy as is. I also think for something of this colour, a plain background possibly isn't the best option. --Erin (talk) 18:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes of course, but what are we all voting for? Is right that we should vote positively about things we are interested in, and negatively if the subject is of no interest to the voter? I think this place is more featured *content* cadidates, rather featured *pictures* sometimes... <steps off soapbox> ;-) ADSR6581 22:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose bad lighting and boring. --David Gaya 10:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose => not featured norro 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
