Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pattern lamps 2016-1.jpg

File:Pattern lamps 2016-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info May there be light in the dark winter nights! And long live minimalism! Composition with a street lamp in Porto Covo, Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Looks really cool. Just so I understand, you say "Composition with a street lamp" so this is one lamp cloned three times and not one photo of three lamps side by side, is that right? --cart-Talk 23:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes! Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for a prompt and clear answer. Sorry, the pic is very cool and it is a great minimalistic photo of a lamp you have cloned, but this is similar to previous discussions about 'mirrored' images. I know that people have different views on this, but I don't think such photos should be in FP since they don't follow the guidelines for Digital manipulations of FPCs. That guideline also states that any such work should be clearly stated in the file's description so please add that. --cart-Talk 00:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this level of manipulation is appropriate for an FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC) changing my vote to Neutral after considering Colin's objection. While I can't support this nomination as such, I'm certainly not opposed to more creative approaches to imaging here on FPC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you about letting in more creative approches, but as the guidelines are now, this falls into a grey area. cart-Talk 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't undestand the objections of W.carter, King of Hearts and Martin. The photo is described as a "montage", which is an image created by combining serveral images. It does appear to be the same lamp 3x rather than 3 different lamps brought together at composition time. Perhaps the description text can be improved, but that's hardly a reason to oppose. We have similarly combined images at FP. I'd probably find the image more interesting with three different lamps, perhaps at slightly different angles. And a single lamp is probably too minimal to be interesting. But I think this should be judged on its success as a image rather than how it is described. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was extensive discussion the last time a digital manipulation was nominated, with people having strong oppinions pro and con, as seems to be the case here too. Also, the example you mention is more like what we now refer to as a "set". cart-Talk 09:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter I think that example is more problematic as the image might appear to be Liège-Guillemins Station interior but can't exist and does mislead the viewer. Actually my photo deliberately wasn't a set, but a triptych. I wanted it to be viewed as an arrangement of three images. I am also reminded of File:Red LEDs.jpg, which is an actual row of LEDs, and File:Bouncing ball strobe edit.jpg. Two POTY images File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg have the bulb screw Photoshopped in. Anyway, I just don't think we should rule out "montage" as a valid presentation form at Commons FP. What is regarded as FP (or even, in scope for Commons) is highly variable. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I agree that the triptych concept as such (or versions of it) definitely has a place in FP as in the examples you have given, but all those are of different versions/angles/aspects of something, this is the exact same photo repeated three times, therefore it is more akin to the mirroring images where the same photo is also repeated two times albeit one mirrored. (Sidebar: And if we're going for the repetition theme, the are more interesting ways of doing that). cart-Talk 11:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fully aware that this is a risky nomination. Not because the image is manipulated or the same object is repeated three times but owing to its artistic, rather than illustrative, nature. As a matter of fact I'm not interested in documenting what a street lamp looks like but in using its image to make an abstract composition. Thus the proper criteria to evaluate this nomination should be aesthetical, not encyclopedic. As long as the revewers agree that Common is the right place to host this kind of pictures and FPC is the right place to assess them, of course! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I - honestly - love to vote with a strong positive vote for this one. However, as I seem to not having internalized the rules and regulations for FP yet, I hesitated in the beginning. From all comments made so far, to me it all boils down to the question of the artistic versus the documentary value. In this regard, cloning within a photo is toxic to documentation but often a survival factor for arts. In this particular image it's the survival - and winning - factor. I guess that the rules and regulations for nomination of FP's should make more clear how to handle a candidate that is clearly not attempting to document a given scenery or situation. I fully second Alvesgaspar's last comment and would like to add that it would sit well on Commons if purely artistic photographic work could also be awarded with the most prestigious achievements it has to provide.--AWeith (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Both Colin and cart make very good arguments. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you can see, Combined images are not against the rules in the guidelines !! I disagree with Cart and Colin, we already promoted some (from the same author). I' m not especially impressed by this one, for aesthetic reasons (a kind of "no wow"), but there is no violation of any rule, neither an attempt to deceive the reviewer. The nomination is OK for me.--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jebulon I disagreed with Cart about the rules, so not sure why you say you disagree with me also. I'm with you that this one just isn't impressive enough. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, my bad. Babel Tower problem with my poor english.--Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]