Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strandkörbe in Sellin.jpg

File:Strandkörbe in Sellin.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 05:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Beach chairs at the beach of Sellin (Rügen). All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and colors, very clear image. --Laitche (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit too much of sky? -- Pofka (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to answer to @Pofka: : no. The sky is not boring-empty-blue, many things happen, clouds are beautiful, and add to this very nice composition. I like this picture very much--Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is nothing special. The sea is unappealing and the sky merely nice. The subject, the chairs, are hard to see from this angle of view and so crowded at the very bottom of the frame. These beach chairs offer much photographic potential but that's not been exploited here. Compare File:Sellin, Strandkörbe am Hauptstrand -- 2009 -- 1.jpg by XRay, which won the January 2014 photo challenge and is FP in my opinion. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least they don't look like toilets. --Code (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it.... :-) -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If exactly the same ingredient, tuna for instance, I cannot compare French food with sushi... --Laitche (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment crop (note), nothing special on this sky. -- RTA 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. For me the sky is an important part of the composition so I think it shouldn't be cropped. Without the sky it would just be a photo of beach chairs. With the sky it looks much more abstract and balanced in my eyes. I hope you understand. --Code (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 !But often here, only postcard-pure-blue-skies are apreciated, even if living skies are far much more dificult to be taken in photograph. A pity. This sky is excellent and very interesting !--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good composition, a very nice image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, composition is inferior to the other one. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and I'm fine with your vote but I don't really understand why we always have to compare pictures with each other. I think every candidate should be evaluated for itself. XRay's picture is great in my eyes but it's completely different. I knew his picture and thought about it when I made my own photo but I think it wouldn't have had much benefit for us if I would just have done the same shot again. --Code (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Laitche (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We compare with others for several reasons. The primary one is that FP actually requires it. This isn't "Nice pictures" or "Pictures I Like" but "the finest on Commons". That means we must look at the category of similar images and conclude this is among the very best we have. So being significantly inferior to another Commons image is a valid reason to oppose. Secondly, remember that not everything a reviewer mentions is their "reason to oppose". They may be simply giving examples of where a different approach was taken that was successful. I agree XRay's picture is different, though the subject is the same. If I though this composition / angle of view wasn't successful, I'd hardly suggest you look at a similar one. Certainly I wouldn't expect you to duplicate another image, but one can get ideas and try a variation. The fact that these chairs are identical and patterned and placed in rows is crying out for a photograph that exploits those attributes, rather than one that clumps them together at the bottom of the frame. So "evaluated for itself": no that's not what FP is for. Try QI for that. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP is not for searching the best picture of a certain subject. That's what VI is for. We're not featuring "The finest picture of a certain subject on Commons" but "The finest pictures on Commons". It's absolutely possible to have more than one FP of a certain subject. Go to Category:Eiffel_Tower and click on "Featured pictures". There are 14 of them! If you oppose a certain FP nomination because you don't like the composition (what seems to be the case here) or because you think the quality is bad it's perfectly ok for me. But just to say there are better pictures of the same subject is not a valid argument in my eyes. --Code (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is "among the finest" so, no I'm not confusing this with VI, and I already explained that comparison is not all about the oppose reasons but also about suggesting alternative approaches. We have several FPs of some subjects and presumably at each time people thought they were among the finest. It is quite possible for several images to be excellent. How you decided to group the image among its peers is varied as describing the subject/technique is varied. We often compare bird, plant, architecture, panoramas against their peers in those categories. I don't know why you and two others think this is odd, because I'm sure they do it too. If someone nominates an average photo of the Eiffel Tower, I quite expect someone to say "we already have several much better ones of the Eiffel Tower". Or people say "sorry the standard of butterfly photos is much higher than this". We absolutely do not evaluate each candidate in isolation, and I hope you don't. It is really common that images are opposed and the nominator pointed to a category where superior examples can be found. To make it clear, I didn't oppose because this was inferior to the other image of those chairs. I opposed because the composition is poor. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is shorthand for, "I don't like the composition of this one, with all the chairs bunched up in a single line below the horizon. The other photo shows how the scene can be captured better." --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places