Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skeppsbrokajen Gamla Stan from Skeppsholmen Stockholm 2016 01.jpg

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

File:Skeppsbrokajen Gamla Stan from Skeppsholmen Stockholm 2016 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 19:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skeppsbrokajen Gamla Stan from Skeppsholmen Stockholm
Extended content
  • That sound like a rather odd reason to not support a photo. I agree that many of Julian's recent uploads are stunning and I expect we'll see some of them here at FPC. However, FPC is not about which photo(s) of someones upload is the best; it is about which photo(s) of a certain subject is the best. IMO this is the best photo of Skeppsbrokajen we have. Are we really to limit the number of FPs that a photographer can get from a batch of uploads? --cart-Talk 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, technically, you are right. My point was more that I don't think we should limit how many FPs a photographer can achieve from a session/upload batch/trip/whatever. If someone can take a number of extraordinary photos in a brief time, then kudos to that photographer and thank you for uploading them here. --cart-Talk 18:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I agree with that point. I should have prefaced my comment by saying I'm not really wowed by this image; the foreground ruins the composition. I've changed my vote to oppose for the same reason - IMO the image isn't up to FP standard. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thennicke, the voting guidelines specifically discourage: '"You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image'. Ikan, I do think FPC should consider "best in scope", but that scope should never be the photographer's uploads in general. We have to take scope into account simply because otherwise it is really too hard to compare a portrait with a building with a landscape with a macro butterfly. It's the only fair way to judge, and to appreciate the difficulties / qualities we look for in each kind of subject/situation. VIC' scope is extremely narrow, though if Julian/anyone has uploaded photos of the same scene in the same conditions that are better, then I'd be interested to see them and reconsider my vote. -- Colin (talk)
Colin, we're on a similar wavelength. I don't say that scope, broadly considered, is not a consideration; I do say that it's not a primary consideration, but it's quite evident that we judge a picture of a tiny, rare insect differently from a picture of a mountain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colin: This was not intended as a criticism of the author - I simply don't like the image; specifically the composition. That I came across in such a way is unfortunate, and I apologise. To answer your question, I think that [1] is a better image, though even then it's a bit "right-heavy" compositionally and it's a slightly different subject. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thennicke, I know it wasn't -- the quoted text isn't quite appropriate here. But "Julian's other recent uploads are far better than this one" really isn't an acceptable reason to oppose IMO, unless the "other recent uploads" are of the same scene+weather+style. -- Colin (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 Cities and towns are places built by people for people and they are a natural part of the scenery there. In this case I think they add to the composition by giving it more depth. --cart-Talk 08:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1, I can't to be more agree because people are important in a certain type of photography, it makes the composition more human. It would be kinky to think that in a city there is no one there like the land without humans. --The Photographer 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The couple walking and the man with the red hat both add a little to the picture. The lady obscured by the street pole is unfortunate though. Many of the very best urban photos feature someone in the frame, and often when you read about how they were taken, the photographer set up their camera and waited patiently for someone to come along and add the necessary life to their picture. I don't think that's quite the perfect moment here, but without people at all it would be a sterile photo. We are perhaps used to photos without people at FPC (vs the real world that is all about photos of people / with people) because it is the next level of hardness to get right. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that positioning people in a photo is harder but it can be worth the wait. You could also get some other living thing in the scene. In this painting of the same veiw, the artist has added two birds in the same place where we have people in this photo. --cart-Talk 08:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Skeppsbrokajen_Gamla_Stan_from_Skeppsholmen_Stockholm_2016_01.jpg&oldid=263474793"