Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mitra stictica 01.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mitra stictica 01.JPG, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 15:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It for sure is beautiful object in itself, but I see nothing outstanding from photographic perspective. Maybe on FSC (Featured Shells Candidates)? I don't believe settings are optimal, and the results aren't very sharp. Nice masking job (or looks like so at least, since we don't know where edges truly are) - Benh (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)- Weak support Just because a creator produces a steady flow of high quality photos of a subject related to its other should not be held against him/her. I think this nomination is also very good. Quality is surely adequate given the large resolution of the composition. Having said that it would be nice wih some diversity in the composition, which are almost mechanic now. This layout and composition is very encyclopedic and informational and perfect for VI, but maybe not the composition which best wets the appetite for shells among persons not normally interested in that subject. Something like this, for example is perhaps more eyecatching. I don't know, but it would nice to see some compositional diversity and boldness. Show us shells as we have never seen shells before.
--Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just because a creator produces a steady flow of high quality photos of a subject related to its other should not be held against him/her.. And then you oppose the train candidate below because the bar has increased ;). So does the shell bar stand still unlike the trains'? That's no my point anyways, just this picture is not to my tastes like many dislike the dusk panorama I like so much and can find them boring unlike me. But just, I feel like it's a tad harder to get the train picture below right. This one can be repeated a thousand times, yet the settings aren't optimal, and it shows. It's not bad (at all actually), but it could be better, and easy for the author who has his shells collection in sight. And again, what are we voting for? Shell itself (which is beautiful to me), or photographic skills?- Benh (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your line of thought, and sorry for the comment, which, on rereading it, seems a little snide. Concerning my different votes, the difference is that unlike the trains I still have not seen better shell images on Commons than Llez's... I think the shell photos can be done more interestingly, which I am trying to point out, and this drives my symbolic weak. Concerning what we are evaluating, for me it is actually the end result we are voting for, not necessarily the photographers skills or his equipment.... although they are usually correlated. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are too kind a person. Your comment isn't snide at all (contrary to what one can feel when reading mineS, but most of the time, I'm simply a bit too straight). I personally haven't seen better trains' pic than Kabelleger's ;) - Benh (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support - high quality reproduction. From a scientific point of view, an "artistic" photograph of shells can be far less useful than this sort of illustration. --Claritas (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Abstain -- Like the French say, mon coeur balance (my heart is divided) between the very good quality and educational value of these pictures and the feeling that a FP should be something special and unique. I have produced FPs of the two types and believe that they are both featurable. Still, when one very good image is promoted, the FP bar seems to automatically adjust as to avoid that very smilar pictures are promoted in the future. This is a good principle in my opinion because it makes our creators to look for better and/or original solutions. In the end, maybe we should only promote these kind of standardized illustrations when they show considerable improvements over the existing FP of the same kind. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)- Support I agree with Claritas. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Trongphu (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per the supports above. --Cayambe (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support, plus one shell --Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small depth of sharpness. Aleks G talk) 13:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals
