Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:American White Pelican (Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds).jpg

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

File:American White Pelican (Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 09:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds, Marin County, California.
On noise
    • This photo was taken with an up-to-date class-leading camera, at ISO 100 in very bright daylight. And still you aren't happy with the "noise". Perhaps it's time to re-calibrate your expectations or even to appreciate a little grain. Photons are particles and the world does not look like Toy Story. I don't want Frank to feel under pressure to blur this photo just to gain another vote, or for us to get only 4MP bird photos like we use to. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, will the world stop rotating for you if I don't support this right off the bat (especially seeing as I am the only one not !voting support)? I don't bully you every time I don't understand your !vote when we disagree (which happens more often than you think); perhaps it is expecting too much of you to reciprocate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, this is a forum, not a simple popularity vote, and part of that involves discussing reviews. If you're not prepared to justify/defend/explain your criticism of e.g. "background noise => no support from me" then don't make it. It's as simple as that. It isn't "bullying" and you won't shut me up by playing games like that. Your criticisms of tiny amounts of "noise" in otherwise fine photographs (while completely ignoring in others) is quite harmful to this project. That's why I bring it up. You're a very frequent and very vocal reviewer, and some new reviewers might, on seeing your opinions all over the FPC candidates here, think this was an acceptable reason to oppose. That's how a culture forms and before we know it, we're back to the days of JJ Harrison and his 2MP birds. So my advice is if you want to make comments that state your opinions assertively then get a thick skin. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My response was not an emotional one, just an intellectual one ... I really am curious why you do this sometimes, to some users, and not others. If I had a thin skin I'd complain about every single time you've done this to me or someone else—in fact, since you brought this up, I am nothing less than amused and/or baffled trying to reconcile your high-minded self-justification above with this comment of yours in an FPC a month or so ago (And while we're at this, can you explain how this friendly and well-intended advice to another user helps promote a collegial and constructive atmosphere among users not only here at FPC but on Commons generally?

And above and beyond all that, I strongly doubt my reasons for !voting one way or another have influenced anybody in how they themselves !vote. Plenty of pictures have succeeded overwhelmingly where I have been one of few, or even the only, oppose !vote. I think you know that feeling yourself, which is why I'm surprised that you would take it upon yourself to take it to me over that. I reserve the right to oppose images where I feel they're too noisy in some way, just as you (I assume) reserve the right to oppose images when you think they're too close to a "tourist snapshot". While I feel that's not a good reason to oppose, I respect your right to make that a basis for your oppose and I don't try to get under your hood on that one. All I ask is the same respect from you. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond in detail to your emotional rant. Daniel, if you can't handle criticism of your opinions that are made on an open forum like this, then don't check the "Watch this page" when you submit them. That's all. "Respect" is not the same as "Don't criticise me" but I suspect you wish it was. The reason your opinions might influence others is because you state them quite verbosely and adamantly whereas others either say little or show some humility. I expect others to challenge my views just the same as I will challenge others. If you leave a lot of opinions around, then expect some of them to be challenged by others. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks a lot to both of you. I like getting feedback on my work – that's part of why I'm here. Over the last couple of years, the technical aspects of my photography have improved and I'm tremendously thankful for this opportunity. My perception is that Commons contributors are mostly focused on things like noise, chromatic aberration, file size, etc. whereas aesthetic aspects seem to play a much smaller role. In general I think that's ok – if you're a photographer and your main interest is getting feedback on your images that goes beyond technicalities, you just post them on Flickr or (even better) on 500px. Now, whenever I upload an image here that I consider "high-end", I carefully check all technical aspects of that shot. In the case above, I've checked the noise and thought it was ok. If it turns out that people disagree with me, I usually look at the image again and upload a new version if needed. With all of that said, I would personally be very happy if we as a community of high-end Commons photographers or critics of fellow high-end photographers could re-calibrate our approach to what image quality means. Over the last couple of years I've seen dozens of shots that were of low aesthetic quality but made it through this process because they were technically ok. So, feedback is always welcome (and, to be clear, I fully respect both your input, Colin and Daniel Case), but also let's not forget that outside of our small community here people might care most about the aesthetics (and, in the case of Wikipedia readers, the encyclopedic value) of a shot. All the best and thanks again. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Yes, it seems like I gravitate towards a specific sewage pond in January to shoot this species :-) So funny. Thanks a lot for your observation and a Happy New Year! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:American_White_Pelican_(Las_Gallinas_Wildlife_Ponds).jpg&oldid=184136876"