Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canada Geese and morning fog.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Canada Geese and morning fog.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 15:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I think the image has a great mood, and it must have been a nice view. However, I do not think it quite reaches the level of another FP from Golden Gate Park, File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg. I think the latter also have larger value in clearly showing crepuscular rays. Your photo certainly has some very good aesthetic qualities, and it is something you can be proud of, but I do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional. The image quality is also a little dissapointing when I have closer look with quite some noise in the darker areas. I know it is hard to avoid, but anyway, this is FPC. Could you add a geolocation please? Its odd how your and the now self-excluded photographer, mbz1 creations deal with quite similar subjects. Do you know her? (You do not have to reply on the last question). --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit disappointed with your oppose reason.   First you compare the nominated image to the image that got fourth place in the picture of the year competition. Then you say that you "do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional." The images add to each other. They were taken in about the same place at about the same time and show how different the fog could be. The fog is different, the light is different, the sky condition is different. One image has the rays, the other has flying geese. One image has the sun behind the tree the other has the sun behind the fog. One image has a clear sky, the other has a foggy sky. In my opinion they both have educational and informational value, but where it is written in FPC criteria, that the value should be exceptional? I added location. Just copied from Mila's image. I know her. I reduced noise in some areas.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Point taken. Maybe I was coming down a little too hard on your image. I was not aware that milas image came in fourth so I agree it is a little unfair to compare the two. Albeit there is an informational and educational element in showing the fog, I feel we are pretty well covered with fog images on Commons. Almost as well covered as with sunsets. Pleasing to look at from an artistical side, but actually obscuring otherwise informational and educational elements such as the ducks (we have plenty of those here as well) and geese. You are right that it does not say anywhere in the guidelines that the value should be exceptional. It says "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" and it also say "beautiful does not always mean valuable". It would be more precise to point at those sentences for my reasoning. Interesting that you know mila. Did you borrow her camera as well? You use the same camera model - a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi!?! OK, let me just pop a more blunt question, just to avoid any further speculations: Is Two+Two=mila?--Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What made you to believe that I cannot afford my own camera? Two+two=4 or as you explained to me "2+2=10 in the Ternary numeral system". In my opinion the nominated image is at least as valuable as quite a few current FP images. Of course if you decided to fight for the value of FPC even using my own image as a scapegoat, I wish you good luck  . I hope to see more oppose/neutral votes from you for the same reason and with the same detail description of your opinion in the feature.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when two users know each other, shoot the same kinds of subjects from the same locations, with the exact same camera model it could have been the same camera and even the same person... But you have stated now that it not the case, so case closed. Concerning "scapegoat" I want you to know that I try to the best of my ability to review any image as objectively as I can against how I perceive the criteria and not let my review be influenced by who the creator is and the topic. I am not a robot though, nor flawless. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to check if we're using the very same camera is to check for dust spots. If you find one in the very same place on both images then your quest will be solved, my dear Sherlock Holmes  . On a more serious note I would like you to know that I have stated nothing except that I am using my own camera and that 2+2=4 that is a well known fact :). With my statement I tried to make you to realize that I consider your questions and statements that have nothing to do with the nomination a little bit intrusive and strange. I am glad you closed the case. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dust spots can be cleaned, both off the sensor and off the images, and given that the photos you shot and the photos that Mbz1 shot are a couple of months apart, there's no proof either way to be gleaned from looking at spots... For the record, I noticed that you also used the same version of Photoshop CS3, and both saved with progressive JPEG... Just saying... Diliff (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now I'm also being accused in destroying the most important evidences - dust spots:) Diliff, how interesting you mentioned progressive JPEG. As a matter of fact I've tried to use different saving options (I assume you have not looked over all of my uploads :)), and was about to ask you what is the best way to save the files after editing with CS3. I've noticed that every time I do a minor edit and save a file, the quality of the sky is getting worse. So as long as you commented here anyway could you please give me a professional advise what saving options I should use? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, man, you came here, voted only on two nominations out of 60+ nominations , and you want me to believe to you that the image is not an "eye-popper"?  --Two+two=4 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. In case you have not yet heard I am not 2+2=4. I am a notorious Mbz1 with an absolutely horrible block record. All I wanted was a fresh start, but I guess I cannot have one. I should have been threaded differently like infamous Mbz1 and not as an innocent new user I pretended to be. Please feel free to revoke your "support" votes for this nomination as well as for my other nominations. Please feel free to change you "support" votes to "oppose" votes. BLOCKLOG1 + BLOCKLOG2 + BLOCKLOG3 and --2+2=4
  CommentSigh, well you certainly do your utmost to stir up as much drama as possible instead of pursuing the less dramatic and sensible path which would simply be to link to your previous account and then continue with your fresh start:-( --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of educational value in the image: irridesent fog, reduced visibility due to the fog, the flying geese, the reflection, the visibility of the sun behind the fog. Your mention about so called "similar image" shows that you yourself could have learned a lot from the nominated image. The only semilarity between the images are that they were taken at about the same place, but of course "no wow" cannot be helped  .--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank everybody, who supported the image. This nomination was practically killed from the very beginning first by highly unfair oppose reason, and then for even more unfair interrogation. When the nomination has started, the image's creator was happy 2+2=4, who just got out of the cage and was flying free. Now the nomination is about to end, and the image's creator was put back to the cage with the broken wings. I've done nothing wrong to deserve it. According to Commons's policies I had all the rights in the world for a fresh start, but... I would also like to thank lycaon for two reasons. The first one is that he said "sorry" in the end of his oppose reason. That "sorry" meant a lot to me. The second reason I'd like to thank lycaon for is that kindly he has never taken a part in the interrogation himself. My special thanks is going to diliff. I laughed out loud at his way too serious response to my joke about dust spots. Sometimes it gets really funny to deal with people who're lacking sense of humor, or at least whose sense of humor is very different from mine own. Thanks, diliff, you made me laugh. The nomination still has 3+ hours to go, but no matter if the image is promoted or not, I will always remember your supports for that very special for me nomination  . --Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or edit

  

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Canada_Geese_and_morning_fog.jpg&oldid=28468952"