Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2006

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

Consensual Review discsuuons[edit]

Pelicans in flight.jpg
  • Nomination Pelicans in flight by User:Tomascastelazo
  • Decline Through underexposure the details of the birds are not clearly visible. The taxonomic name of the species would also be required. -- Freedom to share 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont think such a composition under sunlight can provide details within the shadows. Gnangarra 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a comment I want to make because I constantly read this "complaint" about under/over exposure. While sometimes it may be a legitimate observation, I personally observe that most of the time is a wrongly applied criteria. To understand over/under exposure within objects in an image one must be aware of the dynamic range of the media and the lighting conditions. While an exposure to sunlight will render good color/tonal range of all subjects that receive the direct light, the shadows will always be underexposed, for parts of subjects with shadows will receive 16 times less light. In this particular case the exposure was appropiate to sunlight conditions, the sun being above the subjects necessarily casts a shadow to the underbellies, therefore underexposing them. It is precicely this light differential that creates volume and texture within images, it is not a photographic fault. Photographic media is static wit regards to tonal representation and does not "adjust" as the brain does to lighting diferentials. To illustrate: A piece of white paper, half sunlit, half in the shadows, photographically speaking, given an exposure to sunlight, the sunlit half will appear white, while the shadow half will appear gray. Given an exposure to light in shadows, the sunlit half will be burned out, while the shadow half will be represented as white. One must consider the tonal value of the object within a scale shot with 18% gray in mind. I suggest you guys read about the Zone System, tonal range, dynamic range and texture range and evaluate accordingly.--Tomascastelazo 16:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC) comment by user, moved to review by Gnangarra 17:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One more comment... The image should be read according to its intention... this is not a picture of detail of the pelicans, but rather an observation about their flight patterns and formations. This is one criteria. If you evaluate as to the texture range or detail of the image, it fails in that criteria. If you evaluate according to the physical characteristics of the species, well, it fails too. But if you evaluate according to the graphic element of rythm, the ansew is different. If you just plain don{t like it, well, that is your right...--Tomascastelazo 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say point of this image is naturaly "phased motion" / flight pattern, and texture of birds is irrelevant / uncessary. On the other hand I can't agree with the genral reasoning that observer should take into account technical problems of contemporary imaging technology. Compare - that's like saying "observer should take into account bulb lighting is naturally very warm yellow, so its ok if indoor shots have yellow cast. take a piece of papar, half lit by light of the sky, half by bulb, you'll see the clear blue and yellow - photography does not adjust to light color temperature like the brain does, so the color cast is usualy ok ... ". Today, this would sound a bit weird, as all the digicams have white balances settings /AWB /... But few years ago it would be as legitimate argument as that about low dynamic range - correcting photos for color temperature wasnt so easy - it required use of filters / special films / adjustements in processing.
  • The situation with dynamic range is exactly the same. Sometimes, dr of current digicam sensors is big enough. Sometimes, shadow of highlight details are uncessary / distracting, and the photo is better if the details are lost. Sometimes, shadow or highlight details are necessary and the photo suffers because of media limitations, so its necessary to do someting more to create good photo (for example - fill-in flash, use of reflector, exposure bracketing + creation of HDR composite, waiting for better light, .... )
  • So - yes, in this case, the image is IMO good without the details, and possibly better than it would be with them. No, generally its not the problem of the observer/reviewer wether a camera has dynamic range of XY ev units. Either the image is good without the details, or is not. --Wikimol 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this forum is about quality images, I think that people should then have the competence to judge according to technical/aesthetic criteria that are fairly universal and based on knowledge. And despite great advances in technology, digital cameras are still a long way from competing in certain areas with film cameras. I still have not found any digital camera that gets close to a good 4x5 negative in dynamic range, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that in this part of the e-world and with regards to photography, is that people make judgements that are not well informed and demand a level of reality of the images that does not even exist in the real world. Photoshop, for example, is used more as a gadget/gimmick than as a tool to create images that verse in elements like color, shape, volume, etc. There is a tendency for a sort of hyper realism. While this can be a valuable attribute, it is not the law of the land. Lets remember that photography, to a great extent, is a vision, a representation, lets not enclose the value of photography inside narrow-minded limits. If Ansel Adams were to be judged with the standards around here, and due to the fact that his photographs looked nothing like the reality they represented, he would have been thrown out. I can just see someone writing "the dark rock in the shadows does not have enough detail".

The thing is, a lot of people, IMO, do not really know what a good photograph is. And BTW, the dynamic range of digital cameras is still shorter than film cameras.... I dream of the day when that will be a thing of the past...

I write this as a way to contribute, not to defend this particuar image, which has its faults and merits. People are free to like it or not, and critize it. But lets put some quality in the criticism. --Tomascastelazo 01:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people, IYO, do not really know what a good photograph is? Depends. If those people are the intended audience then they by definition know what a good photograph is, namely one they like (for whatever reason). Or is this 'photography for photographers'? DirkvdM 12:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
DirkvdM: You are correct as far as preferences are concerned. People like what they like, I have no problem with that. And no, this is not about photography for photographers, but for Quality Images. This is about raising the standard and that can be done by bringing light into the distinctions that make a good photograph a good photograph. Just as there are certain aspects about appreciating wine, color, bouquet, aftertaste, tannins, etc., etc., there are agreed upon principles of design and aesthetics for photography. How about if we spread about those principles through education? The worst thing that can happen is that we end up with better photograhy. --Tomascastelazo 14:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I propose that this mage be thrown out as QI. It was just an accessory to the discussion. --Tomascastelazo 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Result - Decline

  • Nomination A guard vearing rogatywka hat by user Halibutt--Thermos 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the central figure, not the distraction of the very large out of focus background. -- Infrogmation 13:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is an appropriate issue to be resolved in consensual review, as in my opinion this image is to be declined on wrong basis.

The reason I nominated this image by Halibutt is that in my opinion it shows almost perfect use of depth of field. As classical photographic rules state, when the subject is singular, it should be isolated from the background by using shallow depth of field. And that is something, that Halibutt as managed to do well. Should this image been shot with small aperture (and with deep DOF), the background which is not the subject of the image, would have been very distracting. However, now the subject stands clearly out of the background. Actually, if you look how well the in the focus area begins with the badge of the soldier with solemn expression and ends with leaves from wreath, this is just how it should be done.

For the reasons above, I would like to suggest that this image is promoted as QI and used as an example for good use DOF.--Thermos 11:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with thermos and add that the image is also emmotive with the solumn expression and the isolation of the soldier, the others in the background are also in unform except the person described as a minister, to soldiers laying wreaths politicians are just a blur anyway. I say promote Gnangarra 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Depth of field of the main figure, yes. Just to my tastes the out of focus area is too large; IMO it would be better cropped. But having said my opinion, if others think it should be promoted, I won't object. -- Infrogmation 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this image a lot, esp. the expression of the soldier. Though the subject is dead-centered, the photographer has captured the event successfully. The image is informative and has a story. In fact, the out-of-focus area, where there is somebody, not a soldier, watching the process adds some kind of peaceful athmosphere. Indon 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Result - Promoted

Naso unicornis 051117.jpg
  • I place this here I nominated this image and its been unreviewed for 2 weeks how should we respond in such instances. Gnangarra 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there should be a time limit, after which images which generate no comments should be removed without promotion. -- Infrogmation 13:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. If nobody cares enough about an image, to either promote or decline it within 2 weeks, the quality must be dubious. --IbRas 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)