Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FoxBassoon.jpg

Image:FoxBassoon.jpg - featured

•  Info An excellent picture of a modern bassoon (Renard brand), a musical instrument of the woodwind family. Created and uploaded by Gmaxwell nominated by Alvesgaspar (thanks MichaelMaggs for showing me the site) --Alvesgaspar 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment same as below, good for articles, not so good for FP --Wj32 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon 08:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --SvonHalenbach 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Atoma 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support with  Comment I would prefer a horizontal version which is easier to place on the pages of wikipedia (layouting of pictures). --Diligent 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--AngMoKio 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support / tsca @ 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of appropriate resp. supporting background. For me a QI. norro 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain further? I do not understand your suggestion. --Gmaxwell 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • He's very clear. He means the background is not good enough. And it's not a FP for him. Would you stop pushing people? --Arad 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It wasn't at all clear to me what he intended. Thank you for clarifying. Could one or both of you show me a similar image which has a better background so I can understand what you are looking for in the future? (probably best to take it to my talk, I'm responding here only because I'm addressing multiple people.)--Gmaxwell 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Good resolution, but for me, it's not FP. The subject is very easy to be captured, and all the quality goes to the camera. I can take the same subject and look at it from close and I'll get better detail. For me, photography must make the subject even more interesting, as it's the case with Dilliff's images. Indeed this is a very good image for it's article as mentioned above. --Arad 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My comment wasn't clear. And people are offended. So just because I don't care, and this vote doesn't make a difference. I  Support And let me make it clear, if this was nominated on Wikipedia I would support, not here. --Arad 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it is unfortunate that you think that way.. Because anything less 'documentary' and more 'artistic' would be less good for our educational purposes. Substantial work was required in the creation of this image, for example I welded a custom mount which extended out of the backdrop and attached safely to this expensive and heavy instrument to avoid the requirement of photoshopping out the background, and I am a little saddened that commons will only honor my work if I make it less professional, less informative, and less accurate with things like overblown saturation, bizarre angles which would hide the keywork or misrepresent the proportions, etc. I'm glad that I'm motivated by the benefit to our projects rather than by featured status, and I hope for our future that more of our contributors will adopt my indifference. --Gmaxwell 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't get mad just because a single user does not understand that this picture is much harder to get than it seems, and that recognizing beauty when it passes in front of your eyes is one of the most important skills of any photographer. Please go on with your excellent work. - Alvesgaspar 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Gah, I'm not at all mad. I don't care. In my view, almost every FPC has objections that I think are foolish and which (if listened to) would decrease the quality of our project, but thats just my view. They also have a lot of useful and helpful comments as well.. We take the good with the bad. :) In any case it is nothing personal. --Gmaxwell 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You're personal attacks (such as foolish comments) are seriously not accepeted. And you are mad. So I support and hope that'll make you happy. --Arad 11:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please be civil with your comments, there were no personnel attacks from nobody - Alvesgaspar 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -LadyofHats 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -Elcairo 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wing-Chi 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Cool. Husky 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Ceridwen 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - It's not easy to place it on screen with a sufficient resolution, unless we turn it 90 degrees, or you extract some detailed parts from the full image. But anyway the image is impressive. - Did you edit it to crop some parts of the background? I have the feeling that some parts of the instrument were cropped too tightly (because the rounded border should have a tangential smoothing near these borders. it gives me the feeling that on some places, the border was cropped 1 or 2 pixels inside, and in other areas, we see some pixels from the background. This may have been caused by editing and filtering. Anyway this image is good. -- Verdy p 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 16 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)