Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Courrendlin Haus.jpg

Image:Courrendlin Haus.jpg; not featured

•  Info created by Ikiwaner - uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, however, this FPC will not succeed. --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Looks very interesting and artistic, but i can't support it, because i don't see a value for Wikipedia or commons. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Really featurable picture --B.navez (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like it --Simonizer (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Why b/w? Why "that" house? No use of wiki projetcs. If it meant to show a traditional house it should be coloured --Sailko (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - In reading the opposes, I understand the reasoning, but the more I look at this picture, the more it draws me in. Where could it be used? I don't know, but I hope it finds a home. It's truly captivating. It's more artistic than practical, but surely there is a use for this somewhere. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good for Explore! on Flickr, but there's no encyclopedically supportable reason why this was taken in b&w. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment IMO, we should not judge a picture because of its usefulness. No one of us can think of all possibilities where this or other pictures can be used. This picture for example could be used at en:Black-and-white, en:Monochrome photography and en:black and white photography. And outside the wikiworld it can also be used for a cover of a book for example. A half year ago some scientists from the cambridge university in england asked me wether they can use one of my pictures for the cover of their new book. The picture is a picture of a butterfly but the book is about Health and Social Sciences. --Simonizer (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that taking this picture in b&w doesn't add anything to it artistically, and simply reduces the usability. It's simply a gratuitous gesture of artiness to take such a picture in b&w, which is a very good reason not to feature it in an article on monochrome photography, especially not over pictures such as this or this, to use some non-famous examples where the reduction of color is used to enhance the composition. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strong oppose. Very small usability here and what more, b&w isn't right for this picture in my feeling and it is maybe some strange unprepared b&w which looks as secondary created by some graphic editor. Image has really good composition, but dark sky in contrast to lighted edges of trees (polarizing or at least yellow filter?) looks very very strange. These facts pull down everything except some artistic sense, but artistic view is unimportant. --Martin Kozák (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose might support a color version. Ianare (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --LC-de (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Strong support! I agree with Jennavecia and Simonizer. And: This picture is mystic. The white front of the house is a good contrast to the black surrounding area. --Ukuthenga (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)