Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pointe 228.2 La Tourasse (3).jpg

File:Pointe 228.2 La Tourasse (3).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2010 at 13:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pointe 228.2 La Tourasse (3).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pointe 228.2 La Tourasse (3).jpg

•  Info created by archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by archaeodontosaurus - nominated by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. Another very good one.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Per Jebulon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great work as always!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Sorry not to join the bandwagon, Archaeodontosaurus, but I don't like the composition. Why so much black? Why not put the four views in the same row? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The first 3 are views of the highest scientific position. It is a mandatory exercise. the bottom image test to give a less austere view, which we have more familiar. Backgrounds should be as neutral as possible, even if sometimes I give a gradient. In this case it enhances the material. This tool is very aesthetic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The subject is interesting, but I also do not feel convinced about the composition. It was only after I read the caption that I realized it was the same specimen viewed at different angles. I think that for an FP that should be immediately visible from just seeing the photo. I also lack a sense of depth in the photo of the Azilian point. I think that has to do with the placement of the light sources. You have this related photo File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global.JPG. That one is IMO better at addressing the depth of the objects and here the shadows and angles from the light sources seem to be better at illustrating the texture as well. The black mirror effect in that photo also helps. Maybe something similar could be done here? I also think that too much space seems to be used for the black background. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
•  CommentVery well observed. What I preferred was the transparency of the material, so I placed the light so what makes the best, which hindered the recognition of form. This composition has been promoting the idea of the extreme delicacy of stone work. The weight of this object is 2.7 g! There is a version with reflection I will also pay, out of competition.  Done--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your answer. I guess it is much a matter of taste and there is no absolute truth in this respect. I am not just sufficiently in awe for the presentation of the specimen to give it a support. 2.7 g is a lot lighter than I had anticipated. maybe it would be worthwhile to add this information to the file page as it adds value? --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You're quite right, even photography science is not immune to fashions. The weight of each piece is known. But it is a sensitive issue, many Museum Curators do not want to give this information to avoid aftershocks too close to the original. Do an exception to inform the debate and makes this information in the caption. Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for adding the information (and for making the necessary phone calls to get allowance). I was surprised to learn that many curators does not want to give this information to avoid aftershocks too close to the original? I must admit that I do not quite understand exactly what that means? Maybe it is a language barrier thing? Exactly what is the risk by providing the weight of a specimen? Sorry to ask such a stupid question .--Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • fr:Ce n’est pas une question stupide. De très nombreux Musées (Sciences ou art) ne donne jamais le poids qui est une information sensible. Le commerce des copies est plus important que tu ne le crois. en:This is not a stupid question. Numerous museums (Science or Art) never gives the weight that is sensitive information. Trade copies is more important than you think. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Ah, it is a safeguard against fraudulent copies. Keeping the weight secret gives a possibility to double-check if it really the correct specimen, now I get it! So, when you first revealed the weight here in this review, you were actually revealing more than you would normally do. Thanks for the explanation. --Slaunger (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Bjoertvedt (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment As I feel free, and not in a "bandwagon", after reflection and a new careful review, I must say that I agree wit the nominator, and keep my initial support to this version.--Jebulon (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects