Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Island of Prvić (Krk).jpg

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

File:Island of Prvić (Krk).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 19:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

:Island of Prvić
  • it's not possible to change how you vote because mostly you don't vote, just comment. And mostly your comments are incompetent, not that I think you really are incompetent. For some reason you just can't be neutral. This is just one example. In one picture the lighting is dull and flat, in another picture the same lighting it is good. There is always a way to talk down a picture. You can always put down composition, lighting, colours etc. Sometimes the centred composition works, sometimes it doesn't, balanced lighting and other crap. It is not harassment, I just noticed what you do here and I want others also to see that. Many of us are not good enough in English to argue with you and and it may leave false impression that we actually silently agree with you. Feel free to oppose any picture but tell us what is it that you really don't like. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to interrupt but I agree, the light really is lovely here. I don't know what you compare it to but it creates a warm-cold-contrast and is soft, what more can you ask for in this scene? Nevertheless, a different subject may ask for a different light. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urmas Haljaste, while you think the light in the two images is the same it is not. This image is pleasing to the eye. The island is softly spot lit and yet one can still see the contours of the hills because there is enough contrast in the light. In your image the light is bland, there is little to no contrast and as others pointed out the whole image is dull (despite the brightly lit grass). You need to stop this crying about one comment on one of your images as it is childish. You may not like my comments but they are not incompetent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the light because I was there with Ruta. Yes, it is excellent. And it is quite the same in my photo but I don't care about my photo. As I told before, I just want others to see you don't really analyse photos but you are being emotional like many others. It is OK to vote based on emotions but don't try to make it analytical by adding all kinds of crap in your comments. You try desperately to be an opinion leader but we don't need one here. It is you who is being childish by trying to be the lord of the flies. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urmas, you seem to be mad someone has higher standards than you. Strage position to take for a project that is supposed to be about the best of the best. There is no fault in the commentary I can see and in most instances the comments have led to corrections and eventual broad support. I see even you changed the crop in your image after the commentary your image was too centered. It does look better, but I agree with others the light is still dull and off. Saying something is off may not be technical jargon but it is not an emotional statement either. It simply means that something doesn't look right but it is hard to say what is the actual cause. In this case I think the lighting in your image is too flat and dull on the main subject. It creates a very 2-d representation of a 3-d object. It lacks depth. Fix it or forget it. 131.137.245.207 13:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not mad and I'm not talking about my pictures. I'm talking about someone having no standards at all. Of course these comments will lead to "corrections" because the comments have huge effect on the vote. It is very unfortunate that some great pictures do not get the support because of a "specialist" being a first one to comment the nomination with some kind of bullshit made-up reasons. Once again, I'm not talking about my own photos. There are clear standards in the guidelines and of course there is the so called "wow" effect. It is mostly the matter of taste whether you support or not and I respect the personal taste very much. But I think it's not in the interest of this project when you try to incline others vote by writing about some made-up reasons, accusing in over-processing, hiding something etc. I'm not so much worried about the single nominations but the tendency of manipulating comments. Haven't seen any 3d photos here. They all are 2d. Haven't seen a photo with zero contrast either. When you see something that you couldn't reproduce yourself you start talking down the photo. This is what it is all about here, not my nomination. Why are you using a Canadian IP address instead of your signature?? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. Some people don't have a signature or use an account. Not everyone that participates here bothers with one. At least you made your concerns clear. You think saffron is voting against your images because he is a lousy photgrapher. BTW, it was also funny to see you originally posted your comment as an IP as well. 131.137.245.209 14:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny indeed. Really good answer! Every argument considered. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Leitoxx 13:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Not sure if this one should be promoted. See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Sock-/meatpuppetry_and_current_FPC. --A.Savin 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it should be. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Island_of_Prvić_(Krk).jpg&oldid=117583140"