Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2014 at 21:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Yes is full,this is another version [1]--LivioAndronico talk 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Well, I've never understood why photos of paintings should be featured, but at least I'd expect them to be technically perfect—here the light and diffuse specular at the top kills it. Possibly it could be fixed in post-process to obtain a more uniform lighting with darker darks, softer highlights and less reds (according to the other references found on Google Images). -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bickering
  • But at least you re-read what you write? Why put a motorcycle, an obelisk, a portrait? But I'm serious questions? Have respect for those who put the photos here. So why put a rusty truck? If you want to be taken seriously do not ask the obvious questions. I wrote the reasons, if you believe that they are not it's your problem (always the most obvious of your course) .You be more serious and we will all be happy. And remember you started it. --LivioAndronico talk 11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're reading what you want to read. I did criticize your photo only to try helping you improving it. What I've been wondering in my comment above is why photos of paintings are worth to be featured in this category. I've also been wondering the same for some architecture shots on other nominations. That's nothing aimed directly at your photo, it's just a general genuine question. I don't get it because I thought we were supposed to promote photography here, not the work of other artists (painter here) through a “simple” snapshot. Now this can be a lively debate and a subjective one too—after all, buildings are the work of others too, but I still believe that photos taken in a city are interesting. Why? Because there's millions of possible photos of a same location, and it requires a great artistic input from the photographer to come up with a good composition, a lively scene, a nice light, and so on. In comparison, and correct me if I'm wrong, none of this is required for taking snapshots of paintings? The artistic input of such a photo is already defined by the artists at the origin of the painting and what's left for the photographer is to provide a good technical input. Wouldn't it be btter suited in the QI category? Because I don't understand how we can “wow” on the quality of a photograph where someone's else work represent 99% of the content of the image?
Now, on a side note, with your previous replies here, the final one on my nomination, and the “you started it”, do you think it's all appropriate for a community where I've been told is made of 30+ years old grown up peoples?
Anyways. I understand that with the PH-3 badge on your page you must have a high esteem of yourself, and might not want to accept inputs from someone who didn't self-credit himself, but at least you could try to apply the changes to this photo to make it technically correct?
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you write, you can give advice, it is said that they are valid or supported by anyone. If you do not believe that a photograph is appropriate to be featured is always your problem, you have to be more humble and respectful. --LivioAndronico talk 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--DXR (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:La_Fornarina_di_Raffaello_Sanzio.jpg&oldid=135666321"