Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hansons lagoon - laguna hanson.jpg

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

File:Hansons lagoon - laguna hanson.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Neutral Out of focus, incredible amounts of grain. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I'll give points for creativity, but it isn't all that sharp, a lot of noise and I'm not so sure about the EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very moody picture with a nice simple composition and lighting. Image is large enough, and it's easily sharpenable so we can forgive the softness IMO. Someone better than me with toshop/gimp can probably get rid of most of the noise. On the cons side, a very strong vignetting...- Benh (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a negative scan for printing and display ar 20"x20" print at 300 dpi, which means that the film grain will be invisible. Magnification of either negative film or digital image will eventually yield either grain or pixels, and lose sharpness. So to judge this type of image under those parameters is obviously a wrong approach. This image has to do with the aesthetics of black and white photography, the zone system and craftmanship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Changed my vote to neutral per Tomascastelazo's comment. I'm actually a fan of the image, it's very secluded (seemingly) and looks almost like a diorama. But anyway, can you explain your comment further, just a little? You said the negative scan would mean the grain is invisible, but then magnification would yield grain. I think I'm misunderstanding you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Film is composed of silver halide particles, which is the grain of the film. When struck by light, and then developed, the silver halide crystals turn black, and when printed on paper, the process is reversed, black on the negative turns into white on paper. Anyway, think of those particles as dust on a surface, at normal viewing distance, you cannot distingish the individual particles, but if you zoom in you will start to see the individual specks of dust. Another way of seeing it is with skin, ar normal viewing distance skin appears smooth, but even the most perfect sking, under magnification, becomes a series of cracks, ridges, etc. In this particular case, when you print the image at 20"x20", the grain is invisible to the eye, for the eye cannot distinguish the particles. In here you see the grain because the image is magnified when displayed at full size in pixels, and in this particular case, the pixels are smaller than the film grain. So it is grainy because it is like looking at the image with a microscope... makes sense? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Great explanation, thank you. Please forgive my ignorance. Okay, I still have another question. The image is a reduced size, reduced rez version of a negative scan, but shouldn't there still be a little cleanup involved? The very top left corner of the image is filled with strange white specks. To the right of the trees, about halfway up, is a large black spot (dirt?). There is also a glaring vertical scratch I noticed yesterday: easiest way to explain its location is that it is in the lower segment of the second rock from the left, right in the center of the rock. And it's a shame there's graffiti on the farthest left rock. (One of my favorite rock parks is brimming with the stuff, thanks to high school kids.) "V.v.s. P.M.S." Should this be painted out? Finally, if you zoom in to the bottom left corner, on the bottom edge is a white hair-like thing. I'm not sure if this is damage to the negative or if there is land directly below and this is a blade of grass sticking up. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You are and were absolutely right. I retouched dust, graffitti and other elements. For some reason the old version still appears, but the new one is there. I appreciate your observations. They resulted on a better image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is that so? That is a pretty intolerant statement, especially coming from you, since the art that you propose is also questioned as far as legitimacy as a form of art. Judge on the merits of the discipline. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a great analogue photograph. good to see that there's at least one person out there with a decent understanding of film grain. would be great if you could provide additional information on your equipment, film and the technical devices used for the digitasation. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks Peter. Mamiya C330f, 80 mm lens. Exposed according to Zone System. Tmax film, ISO 100. Normal development (but maybe n-1). Tmax developer. Scanner: Epson V700 Photo. Scanned at 4800 dpi, resized to 300dpi for a 20"x20" print. Photo taken about 20 years ago. Scanned May, 2011. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As far as quality, it would be nice to know the parameters with wich you measure it. If I look at a 2000 year old ceramic piece, and I am a regular person, the ceramic piece is a useless and fragile cooking instrument, for I am ignorant of its archeological value. If on the other hand, I am an archeologist, a 2000 ceramic piece is a treasure of history, etc., etc. The fact that you do not know photographic techniques and materials and how they express themselves within their dimension does not deny the quality that exists inside those dimensions. Same goes for encyclopaedic value. Things have to be measured and evaluated within their parameters. Judge this from Zone System parameters, from there a series of quality parameters will emerge. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should be universal values ​​and not intended to address has too specialized. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As defined by Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. So photography is a branch of knowledge, of the human experience, with a set of values of different types, photography can be judged on different variables, such as art, historical record, scientific record, technique, materials, etc., etc. Not all photographs are the same, as not all bones are the same. For example, paleonthologically speaking (this, btw, is a platform of analysis) a collection of bones of a cat dead 1 year may not be of the same interest as a collection of bones of a cat dead 100,000 years ago to a paleontologist. I doubt that under normal conditions, the new cat would be more interesting. To a vet, however, the story may be different. On one level one can say that bones are bones, and chemically speaking they may be the same, but each set of bones acquires relevance by the context in which they are observed. Same as photography. If you judge this image from the technological perspective, from that platform it will be at a disadvantage on some aspects, but even so, technologically speaking, digital, for example, cannot yet render a dynamic gray scale as found in this photograph. Photography is not reduced to pixels, ca, etc., etc., it is much more complex than that. Again, judge from the appropiate perspective. If, on the other hand, you don´t like b&w photography or this image does not fancy your personal taste, just say so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you still think that an FP on commons must have EV, which is mentioned nowhere in the guidelines (again, you'd better look on en:FPC in that case. I don't know for the other languages). - Benh (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Benh: I don´t know if your comment is directed at me or even if I understand the question/comment. Regarless, my comment: Images, on a figurative black and white level can be thought of as having value or not having value. If an image has any type of value, then it can be thought of as an encyclopaedic valued picture, let it be aesthetic, historical, documentary, technical, sociological, psychological value, etc., for in the broad understanding of encyclopedia, it contributes to the understanding of a particular subject. So in this sense, if an image has any redeeming quality, in the FP context, it has EV. To what degree, how it is measured, etc., is another matter and an entirely different discussion. The problem here is that people evaluate and oppose images not considering the EV value of an image, but rather on personal opinions, lack of knowledge and understandig of either the subject matter or the discipline or both. It is ok to oppose on personal taste, but personal taste must not be a mask for lack of knowledge or understanding --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tomas; it wasn't at all for you, but for Archeo...us, who looks to give too much weight to the EV alone. I'm not discussing whether or not ur image has EV, but even it if were not the case, I find it beautiful, and more interesting from a photographic point of view than a museum object. That's enough -for me- for an FP status on Commons - Benh (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If I understand well, it is a museum object ! I find it grainy, underexposed for parts, and I see a strong vignetting. Nothing to say about educational value in this case, but this image does not fancy my personal taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Funny. Now need to answer. Except that that my oppose vote counts for one oppose vote.--Jebulon (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does, but at least we know where the oppose springs from. You see, an oppose vote is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can point out to ways to make things better. It is an opportunity to improve, unless of course we choose to make it sterile. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logorrhea. Please stop trying (without success) giving me lessons about "some important technical aspects of photography" you suppose I don't know, I'm a bad pupil when I listen bad teachers. Who is "we know" ? The oppose "springs" from me, only. Any other suggestion ? It is not a bad, dirty and dishonest oppose. The fact is that you don't support, never, during your history as a "Commons" user, any kind of opposition. Then you use and abuse of irony, trying to disrepute adverse comments with despising and patronizing words. Some wrote to me that I am far to be the worst reviewer here... I'm pleased to trust them... I don't understand why you are so agressive with me, as I am not an enemy (I like a lot of your pictures as they are often a bit "different" and inventive). This is only a photograph, and a discussion about. It seems that you like endless conflicts, therefore I'm afraid you should probably answer... But as for me, I stop wasting my time here, sorry. No problem for me to let you the "last word". And sorry for my poor english, but I hope you'll understand. Regards too.--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jebulon: First of all I sincerely apologize for the appearance of my replies as a personal attack. That was not my intention. Second, I am not opposed to oppose votes in the general sense, but to oppose votes that are either baseless or that generally do not contribute to improvement. As you checked my regular opposition to opposes, also check my ratio of support/oppose votes. I bet it is at least a 20 to 1 ratio. Why? because support reinforce behaviour while an oppose vote, if issued in a certain way, can lead to improvement. I like to err on the side of caution, and if I have nothing to contribute with a negative vote, I opt to not oppose but rather remain silent. However, lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I have at times let the situation get the better of me and have opposed for the wrong reasons. I am human. My apologies, I guess you just got in the line of fire on an issue that I care about. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? I agree with you about "oppose votes". We all are humans (I hope so...) This early morning, before to go to work (yes, sundays too...) I made some pictures near Place de la Concorde (nice location, nice weather, nice light, no tourists), and I was walking (almost) alone, thinking to this incident, and I thought that photography and "Commons" are really interesting. At least, we are very lucky to be able to discuss through space about this wonderful hobby. No need of "war". Let's disagree peacefully ! By the way: this incident does absolutely not imply that i'll be a structural "opposer" of your pictures in the future ! Have a nice day.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I will enjoy more film grain in this image.. if this image will get featured I will try to nominate also a black & white image (film photo - with grain etc)! BTW it is a well balanced composition. Ggia (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hansons_lagoon_-_laguna_hanson.jpg&oldid=54958337"