Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård cafe.jpg

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

File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård cafe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 09:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Forgotten pacifier on a wooden table in Röe gård cafe
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •  Info Polymer artifact, probably belonging to a young, possibly infant, human, found in a cooking area right outside habitation ID registration 10154001160001 Swedish National Heritage Board. The location of the find outside the main compound suggests it belonged to a visitor and not one of the indigenous habitants, which can explain why it was not retrieved. Significant DNA deposits on the artifact from a single individual, indicates it was a personal item of some importance to the owner. Photographed in situ and left undisturbed at the site.
I may have spent too much time with archeologists… All by me, --Cart (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying out the "Abandoned" genre. ;) --Cart (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to  Weak support per Colin's very sensible reasoning; it still doesn't have that much appeal to me but I can see the compositional merit to it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Just about the only work-of-art on this page. I like the composition, the colourful, sharply focused and very rounded dummy contrasting with the grey weathered wood that is all straight lines. A fine example of the "elements of composition" (see Commons:Photography terms#Composition). In fact, I think I'm going to stick it on that page. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's just a nice picture to look at because the composition is good and the colours are pleasant. Also, it's nice to see good quality photos here at FPC - other than mountains during the sunset, panoramas of glaciers or historical paintings (nothing against them, I'm just saying that I'd like to see more diversification here). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Podzemnik and others, diversity is exactly why I make these "odd" nominations. We need really good photo of everything and I prefer to photograph objects in a context with interesting background, rather than sticking them on a clinically white or black backdrop. I can't understand why people find that so provoking, even to the point that some user thinks I've lost it and "need take a brake". That comment will be added to my growing collection of strange things said about my noms. I think I have proved that I can take "normal FPCs" (and my life would be so much easier if I just stuck with the mainstream photos), but for the wide scope of this project I find it more useful to photograph subjects we don't have FPs of. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is the "maybe you need take a brake" comment was a response to your humorous archaeology-parody text (which I very much appreciated). Wilfredor isn't a native English speaker, though improving in that regard in his new home country, so perhaps the advanced-English humour didn't work for him, or perhaps he was trying to respond in kind to your "I may have spent too much time with archeologists" self-deprecation, and that didn't translate either. I wouldn't dwell on it. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the diversity of the nominations here, I think we feature all kind of images : Animals, Astronomy, Food and drink, Historical, Natural phenomena, Objects, Other lifeforms, People and Places. Today's POTD, for example, is well composed and very artistic : File:Грот_на_мысе_Большой_Атлеш.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, I have sorted many of them into those categories, but the selection is far from as diverse as it could be especially wrt to normal everyday human activities and items. --Cart (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the selection is just based on a consensus. There's no limitation concerning the various possible nominations as far as I know in the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I hope some of my noms of items like this will encourage other users to photograph what they have around them and not always look to a far off horizon in the setting sun (figuratively speaking). But seeing how such choices are received here at FPC, I'm sorry to say that I think most photographers will be discouraged to try and not risk the discussions I have to face. --Cart (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's more about improvement in my opinion. To quote Jim Richardson : “If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Richardson didn't take photographs for a repository from which mainly Wikiprojects get their photos. --Cart (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This picture shows a high level of blur that is extremely distracting and totally unaesthetic, what do you want ? that I support because it's an insignificant object ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, your oppose is a totally valid way of expressing what you felt about the photo, it was the second part about diversity that sparked the discussion. Please don't mix them up. --Cart (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think we should promote weak candidatures just because it's rare to see ordinary QIs nominated here ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You and some other consider this a weak nom, I and some other consider this a strong candidate. Opinions differ, just like on any other nom. Some like the contrasting dof and surfaces, others don't. Some think white cars are ok, some don't. It's all a matter of taste. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, flaws... -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW, there is no wall in this photo, that is the rim of the table, kind of like this. --Cart (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cart, our selection is most peculiar and this does have consequences on how images get judged. Most of the world's professional-level photography consists of famous or beautiful people doing things, or cultural and social events. Yet that makes up a tiny proportion of our image bank and a negligible proportion of Commoner-taken photography. The photographic areas where FP photographers are inexperienced, such as professional food and portrait photography, also tend to be the areas where reviewers are most critical, and offer the most ridiculous nit-picking rationales for oppose. So while our guidelines do not limit what we promote, there is very much a bias towards safe well-trodden subjects that reviewers are comfortable with, and a disinclination towards the unfamiliar. Just look at the FP category for this: "Objects / other". We don't really know what box to put this in. Many here lack the tools to judge the unfamiliar and I suggest expanding the photographic experience with some books or visiting a gallery. This is a problem for the project, because we lack good photos of everyday things. Many of our nominations get "wow" from the photographer being fortunate enough to be standing in front of something amazing and simply pressing a button on their expensive cameras. Much harder to get "wow" for the craft of photography itself. And it is a problem if it discourages folk. We recently had some food photos that failed that were simply head and shoulders above the sort of image anyone here is taking. A reviewer, who knows nothing about taking such photos, can of course point at our guidelines and complain about blown highlights or focus. And so we continue to fail to attract any professional level food photographers. We have no shortage of church interiors or glaciated mountains.... -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What a long theory just because no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion did not evolve from the "no wow" that was ok, but from your assertion that the selection of FPs is already diverse enough. I think you realize that but you only wanted a clever last comment, and I suspect one will follow this too. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, lol -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Richardson quote is, like many quotes, too simplistic. (Jimbo's "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" is bullshit when you think about it to any level). It also reflects the experience of a privileged (white, male, western and commissioned by National Geographic) photographer. I really hope, Basile, that you are not for a moment suggesting that Commons FP shouldn't include great photos of mundane subjects. I think, rather, you are just fond of arguing. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile has moved my comment from the location where it made sense, to the top level where it appears I am creating some new topic of conversation. This problem with Basile has been discussed before, with examples, and he doesn't listen. Now he has moved on from simply being argumentative for the sake of it, to being disruptive for the sake of it, so it is time to stop feeding this childish attention-seeking behaviour and unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't make sense where it was written, for the good reason Cart replied first, and I planned to reply to Cart. Not someone else pushing everyone for imposing their voice through illegitimate ways. There are conventions here, and politeness, above all. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart, that would be a shame. Even when I don’t support your more creative nominations, I enjoy seeing them here. For me you hit the mark much more often than you miss it, and even if I don’t find any wow in a nomination I appreciate the effort to come up with ideas for creative new compositions. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cmao20, I know there are those who share your point of view about me and my odd noms, but I have finally grown tired of being the dancing bear around here. Sometimes I have felt like just bellowing "Are you not entertained!?"; so I'll settle for a more normal/quiet life now. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Forgotten_pacifier_on_a_table_in_Röe_gård_cafe.jpg&oldid=359998905"