Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:Atlantis launch plume edit.jpg

• •  Comment The image was not created by Fir002. Neither he nor practicaly anybody else from Meet our photographers creates such a "low quality" images. This image was created by w:NASA, and as once was said here "We cannot feature every image created by NASA", which means, I guess, that we can feature every image of the same common insect, bird, almost the same panoramas of the same cities, common no value sunsets as long as an image is of a good qulity.BTW, Varcos, I see you like quotes. Here's one more for your collection taken from the guidelines: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." --Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear Mbz1, if you are so keen in guarding the quality of the FP, please allow me to propose you a more efficient way instead of criticizing the ones who are trying at least to say more than a plenty "suppose" or "oppose". What if starting with the ones who motivate their decision only by their silence? What if starting with the ones who nominate the picture, who do not say a word about the criteria their proposal met in order to deserve the nomination? If you really want to change something, you should start from the bottom. I think the ones indicating a reason, whatever it is, are doing a better job then the ones, who are justifying their decision with silence. Their input allows you to comment and disagree with something, because you cannot disagree with silence. Their input facilitates interaction and dialogue, ones of the pillars of Wikipedia. And sometimes, their input is an example of behavior for the newcomers. I do not think my way of quoting the rules is the best and I am ready to change it, if you can show me a better way. I am quoting because I think most of the voters do not read the criteria before judging a picture. Of course, my decision is to be criticized, if you take into consideration the rule you quote. But, if you look from a higher perspective, considering there are different categories of good pictures on Wikicommons, and FP should gather "the cream of the crop at Commons and is reserved for images of both extraordinary value and technical quality", then allow me to consider this photo as belonging to the lower category which is "Quality images" <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images>. (Varcos (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Dear Varcos, I was far from criticizing your vote summary. I was rather surprised. I saw you used the same criteria that I stated for the beautiful image of lightings down below, that's why I could not understand why you opposed this image. I understand quality images absolutely different than you do. IMO the most important criteria for quality images should be their quality, while the most important criteria for FP images should be their value. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• •  Comment Dear Mbz1, I can explain the difference of value between the two pictures: The picture from NASA is obviously a premeditated one. The guys from NASA were prepared to take the picture in order to document the event of launching.For the picture with the lightning, there is quite the opposite situation: lightning is a natural uncontrollable phenomenon, and in the picture there is not one, but three such phenomenon. Could this be matched, in your opinion, by NASA picture, as value? How often do you take pictures with three lightning? Another reason regarding quality, if you want, is that while being an announced event, the photograph could prepare better (tripod, etc) and properly set the camera in the case of NASA picture, which is not the case for the second one. Under these circumstances, the quality must be judges more severe for NASA picture. (Varcos (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

    Dear Varcos, I do enjoy our discussion and I'd like to thank you for that! I cannot agree with your assesment of the lightings image and image by NASA. Photographing lightings is not as hard as you might think it is. You need a good, safe place, good thunderstorm, good SLR and a good tripod.Then you set your focus to infinity, open you shutter for some time and catch few lightings in the same frame. IMO a photographer from NASA had more difficult task..--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you, too, my friend! You could be right, I could be right, we both could be right or both wrong, doesn't matter! The most important thing was achieved: two humans with different views, exchanged ideas in a civilized manner! See you around! (Varcos (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC))