Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2014 at 21:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Info created by Steinway & Sons - uploaded by Fanoftheworld and McZusatz - nominated by Nobelpeopleuploader -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Great picture of a piano made in the United States. After having voted for Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sukhoi SuperJet 100 (5114478300).jpg I would like to nominate this picture. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Info A quite similar image is already featured, but it is a .png and not exactly the same model: File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png. --Myrabella (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose We can't really have two FPs that differ only in the file format. I assume PNG was the original and someone created a JPG. From the previous FP it appears the original had a colour profile embedded in it that was for printing on coated paper, and someone just removed the profile to make the file smaller. This JPG has no colourspace metadata or profile so the colours are arbitrary. I know it is not a particularly colourful image, but colours are important. It is also rather low resolution (3MP) for a product shot (which these days, would probably have been taken with a 50MP medium-format camera). So too many problems to be "finest". -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Info No, model 1098 and model K-132 are two different pianos. We can easily have two feautured pictures of two different pianos like we already have two feautured pictures of two different Mercedes sports cars: File:DTM Mercedes W204 Lauda09 amk.jpg and File:DTM Mercedes W204 DiResta09 amk.jpg. Regarding the file format: Some people prefer PNG other prefer JPG. But both file formats are suitable for featured pictures, see also the complete guideline for featured pictures. Regarding the resolution: The resolution (3MP) is not low and it is suitable for featured pictures, according to the complete guideline for featured pictures it should be "at least 2MP". I hope you please would reconsider your vote. Thanks. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, they are different. Still, I don't personally see much merit in featuring a remarkably similar image. My other comments stand, and I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, which are just that: guidelines. The 2MP guideline is a very low bar and 3MP is quite unacceptable for a product shot. Nobelpeopleuploader, I suggest you consider what "Finest" means in terms of contemporary photography, rather than arguing about rules. Actually, I'm surprised the PNG was accepted as FP as it is not a optimal choice for photographic images. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To Colin: I'm not arguing about rules, I'm just trying to make something clear. And my way of judging featured picture candidates is always based on the guideline for featured pictures and my own opinion. If my opinion on some points is completely against the guideline I respect the guideline made by the Wikimedia community. I'm not going to raise my very own opinion above the guideline. If every person who vote does that, then the guideline is nothing worth and the voting process is like the Wild West. If you perceived my previous info/comment as an insult I apologize - that was definitely not my intention. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No insult taken. Just you seem to be arguing I should support because it passes the guideline (e.g, 2MP) or that I can't oppose on some issue the guideline has a lower threshold on. The guideline is just the base of what we all agree should apply (with very few exceptions) to all images. But beyond that everyone is free to set their own standards and they should be higher than that! I might consider a difficult bird-in-flight photograph to be fine at 2MP but a studio or landscape photograph is unlikely to impress anyone with that little detail. Compare my own product shots (iron, camera) with far more detail and only an entry-level DSLR rather than pro kit. This piano image lacks any detail in the wood and is actually quite noisy. The award of FP is based on consensus rather than following rules. It is a bit random at times. The overall judgement is whether this is among our finest images. I don't think a rather plain product photograph at 3MP is anywhere close to the expected standard. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see we two have a difference of opinion on how the guideline should be understood and how the voting process should be performed. I don't think we can come to some sort of an agreement on that. Så let us leave it for now. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way: Regarding your opinion "This piano image lacks any detail in the wood..." - that is because the actual piano does NOT have any detail in the wood. The lacquer is very thick - between 1,0 and 1,5 millimetres. The finish of the piano is called "satin" because of the details in the lacquer, which can be seen in the photo. (Here you have a picture of a much cheaper piano with a thin layer of lacquer resulting in visible details in the wood: www.steinway.com/pianos/boston/upright/up-118s-pe). --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I don't think my interpretation of the guideline is out-of-sync with consensus, whereas... well nobody else is supporting this. That other photo looks like the sort of "black ash" wood effect that was popular for cheap hifi in the 80s. Perhaps this isn't real wood finish either (the website seems to indicate that paying for a veneer is an option for discerning customers.) -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are right that nobody else is supporting this picture. That is of course because of the long discussion and not because of the picture. Candidates with long discussions usually don't get supported. There is too much to read before people can make a vote so it's easier just to jump to some other images. I still don't understand why you think "This piano image lacks any detail in the wood..." when the actual piano doesn't have the details you want in the wood? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There are plenty FPs (some my own) with long discussions. What makes you think people need to read other voter's opinions before making up their minds. They may often do so, but it is the image that is important. Nobelpeopleuploader, this is quite important: the FP guidelines do not describe the minimum objective criteria for FP. Indeed, the objective criteria are identical to QI (which this image wouldn't qualify due to authorship). The subjective criteria are judgement as to whether this is among our "finest" and the need for "wow". I can't underestimate how important "wow" is (though sadly often forgotten by some voters who think "nice" is sufficient). A 3MP standard studio product shot that is not creatively lit or presented has no wow. The fact that the detail is insufficient to determine the finish accurately, just emphasises the deficiencies in the image. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Colin. It's among finest, because it's not just a common sharp touristy shot, but it suffers from the comparison with the similar subject (compression artifacts all over the place, jaggy lines probably coming from bad downsampling algorithm...). Also, IMO this is a case where PNG is preferable to JPEG. - Benh (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong), the 2MP limit is there because there might be scenarios (especially action shots in difficult scenarios and scientific imaging) where a higher resolution is almost impossible to get or useless. For a studio product shot, the resolution should be much higher. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose A very well done studio shot, but the low resolution kills it. Look at the highlights along the edges of the piano: Even at full resolution they look like stairways. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment It seems a lot of accounts involved in the promotion of "Steinway & Sons"; so be careful in reviewing them. Jee 16:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Just above the 2MB limit is way too small for a high-quality studio shot IMHO. Poor detail, pixelating edges. It’s a nice image but nice is not wow. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination --19:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Nobelpeopleuploader (talk)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Steinway_%26_Sons_upright_piano,_model_1098,_manufactured_at_Steinway%27s_factory_in_New_York_City.jpg&oldid=129071372"