Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 18:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bicycle reflections.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bicycle reflections.jpg
Comment And what is Komrade Savin, the reasoning that preceeds your opinion, that is, the arguments that lead you to find find the image as having an "uninteresting composition"? Even though your opinion is the result of a subjective analysis, it still is interesting to find out the logic according to you. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the scope of common´smany times dear Komrade Savin, and your opinion about the relevancy is just that, your opinion on that part of your reasons to oppose. Contrary to your opinion, in my opinion the image is within scope for many reasons. But I was not referring to your opinion about the relevancy according to the scope of the project. I was more referring to your opinion regarding your assertion of "uninteresting composition" as a basis to oppose. Surely that that opinion is the result of a sentence or a series of sentences that have to do with your analysis of the image, it is those arguments that verse on the aesthetics of the image that I would like to know about. It would be nice for you to enlighten me so I can become a better contributor to this forum. Unless of course, your opinion in that regard is not supported by an argument based on universal values or practices for evaluating photography.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Komrade Savin, instead of running to AN user problems and denounce me as a trouble maker for asking you to explain your negative vote, you should take a look at Alvesgaspar comment, objective, constructive and definitely informed as to photographic values. Alvesgaspar´s comment invites introspection and acknowledgement of possible flaws of the image, whereas your comment is simply empty and lacking objectivity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is the kind of image that I would have taken/nominated myself. It is certainly not out of scope and I like the idea, which is a classic in Photography. A pity that the actual framing is not a good realization of it, with the presence of disturbig elements like the building and the tree. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'd think the image could be used to educate those who have only a little skill in photography to get a better feel for what people love. Good photographers will stand and organise for hours to be sure about reflections of buildings and trees and take those things into account and do studio work. Great photographers know what people want by instinct alone and capture a long swathe of moments, weaving them into a body of work that makes them famous.
I won't even vote on this one, if people don't know what's this great and what's not without someone else to tell them, I'm wasting my breath. Penyulap☏23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have people that routinely argue every picture of topless girl is in scope yet when someone places a beautiful image up for FPC we get people saying it is out of scope? Utter bullshit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely an honor to have such good photographers on Commons. As already pointed out the photographic idea of the photo is quite good but the possible usage on wm projects is at least limited (which is no problem for me even not as an FPC). But the following fact disturbs me: the photo is massively downscaled (2,3 megapixel) wihtout an objective reason and on the image description a direct link to the professional website of Tomascastelazo is placed. An FP (together with the link to the commercial pro website) gets a prominent place on Commons but only a very downscaled version of the photo is provided to Commons (probably to fit the 2 megapixel criteria for FPCs). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the size: it meets the requirements. Period. On the link. Creative Commons license allows for authors to share their work and have their work attributed to them, according to their requirements. This can be looked as "compensation" for sharing the work for free. Photography costs. Cameras, computers, lenses and most irreplaceble commodity: time. Is it legal? yes. Is it moral? Yes. Is i ethical? Yes. Is it allowed? Yes. Funny thing that I do not hear a defense for copyright violations that occur when people use the images in publications in violation of the terms of the CC licenses and in detriment to the author and Commons itself. And besides, sometimes one has to deal with the local trolls... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually I popped it into a few articles before you mentioned usage, and it seems just fine to me. Now, if we had more brilliant photographers and less admins doing what they can to fuck them off from the project we'd be able to get their help describing the techniques and so on, that are used in the images, and then we could better describe such techniques in our photography and art articles. As it is, I don't dare consider myself an expert in those areas (although my own work, which I don't share online, is widely acclaimed. I'm modest and don't mind saying so :D ha!) I found the image useful already, and as I said before, a good example for teaching techniques to the inept, but for now it goes nicely in half a dozen articles or so. Penyulap☏08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're free to do it. For me, however, it's a further reason to oppose. Other people may see it different way though. --A.Savin15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would find that the WMF disagrees with you. WMF fully supports artists using WP and its sister projects as a means of showcasing their work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is Kafkanesque! Complying with the rules is reason to oppose! Do what you want man, oppose, rant, go crying to your buddies, oppose some more, all on the clear direction that your "guess" may take you! This reminds me of what someone put up in one of these forums: "German people says: "Everybody disgrace themselves as good as they can." Well, you´ve done it! Congratulations! And if you truly believe that this image is out of scope, then your obligation as an admin is to make a DR. I´d be happy to see you in that forum. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the "usages" conjured up by Penylap are inappropriate, as this is not a typical "mirror image" (with the full mirror effect, where elements at the left appear at the right and vice versa), this is just a usual reflection. For illustrating the article about mirror images, this picture is more appropriate, imo (though still not perfectly matching). --A.Savin12:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Savin, what´s this all about? So now you are into judging people´s judgement? Stick to the merits of this image from yur personal perspective, if you can. Jeez... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wah ! I've never seen someone fight so hard against great artwork. 'inappropriate' ? WTF ? I never put it into any article called "mirror image" I put in into صورة المرآة, imaxe especular, imatge especular and 鏡像 as well as 镜像 (几何). Why you have to be so hostile and unreasonable rather than just judge the image on it's obvious merits alone ? Even if you have to judge Tomas instead of judging the image, he's a lovely chap with a great sense of humour, why be so mean ? Me I'm not voting, because I like Tomas work just far too much :D maybe you can do the same eh ? Just let people judge the image itself, nice and unbiased. Penyulap☏20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI uploaded this picture in good faith as a contribution to Commons, in the same spirit that I´ve uploaded many images. I apologyze for the distraction that has been created from my request to have an oppose vote explained by A Savin, which every user who receives an oppose vote is entitled to. A Savin not only refused to explain, but he took issue on my request and posted my action as a complain in AN user problems. I invite the members of this forum to express themselves there and to leave this forum as a FP process where the criteria for discussion is photography or graphic arts. If A Savin does not like the picture, fine, but an oppose vote has at least a moral obligation to be explained, and as an out of scope he has the duty to start a DR. Failure to do constitutes a dereliction of duty. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what has happened here? It was not my intention to open such a great discussion on this topic. IMHO it is Tomascastelazo personal decision to artifically downscale his uploads and I surely respect his decision. My only interest was to hear something about his motivation for that. I am an enthustiatic amateur photographer and I am happy to share my photos with people on Commons (and on other WM projects) and exchange knowledge. It would never come to my mind to artifically downscale my photos (with commercial interests in mind) because I like the idea of sharing and of free content. I also own expensive photographic equiqment, but I bought it for me not for Commons. I do not know how I would think about the topic if I would earn money with photos. Tomascastelazo, one compromise could be to provide at least your FPCs in higher resolution. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the extremest Free Culture bullshit. Give away your works so others can make a profit on them but try to make money off them yourself and somehow you are an evil capitalist. WMF has made it clear it respects the right and even need of original artists to be able to enjoy the benefits of their works and freely acknowledges that exposure on the projects may assist in that regard. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The resolution is low; but I assume Tomas has enough reasons for it. I can see many high and medium resolution files in his gallery. Very artistic. (I visited this page from the AN/U out of curiosity. It is disappointing to see how a simple healthy discussion is extended to repeated, cyclic, never-ending battles (yes; I'm seeing it the third time) outside this FPC community.) JKadavoorJee08:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pssst, wanna see some megapixel porn ? Someone whined that this one had poor lighting and was 'fuzzy', so WAH! look at this baby !! ...Huh ? ...Huh ? ...(nudge nudge) <wink> <wink> look at that resolution. Penyulap☏08:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I definitely thought its a different image from what we usually see in Commons FPC. The idea is interesting and the use of B/W as well. The composition could have been better, however -- Dey.sandip (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment And what is Komrade Savin, the reasoning that preceeds your opinion, that is, the arguments that lead you to find find the image as having an "uninteresting composition"? Even though your opinion is the result of a subjective analysis, it still is interesting to find out the logic according to you. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
