Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012 inauguration of the French President-IMG 1631.jpg

File:2012 inauguration of the French President-IMG 1631.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 19:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info 2012 inauguration ceremony of the President of France, Élysée Palace, Paris Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande shaking hands at the entrance of Élysée Palace. Created by Cyclotron - uploaded by Cyclotron - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conditional on the filename being changed to something meaningful. Colin (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is, in fact: it's "subject-date-ID.jpg" (PR=Président de la République). Rama (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a code, yes, but "PR" and "IMG 1631" aren't meaningful and camera filenames are discouraged as the only person who cares is the camera. Something about "inauguration" and "Président de la République" with your existing date would be better IMO. Colin (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I have renamed the image to File:2012 inauguration of the French President-IMG 1631.jpg, and I will think about doing the same to the whole series. Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality + high EV of the picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical image, good quality. @Colin You might want to take into consideration that using the image ID is useful, when people are asking for additional information on images. This way one own's image archive becomes consistent with the pictures on the Commons and people can easily refer to it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petite réserve : les attitudes de l'un et de l'autre laissent un doute sur qui accueille qui...Attitudes of one another leave a doubt about who is hosting who...--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but Im opposing this on technical grounds. f/2.8 at 1/3200s under such sunny conditions is not acceptable. This should have definitely been shot at a much higher f-number. --Jovian Eye _storm 15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dogmatic assessment IMO. All settings are perfectly acceptable if the result is good, which is the case here.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While this does seem an odd choice of setting, opposing purely on the EXIF data (which could have been absent) seems a valid as opposing because the photographer used a Canon or edited it on a Mac. This 15MP photograph seems acceptably sharp and we don't want the men behind to be in focus. If I downsample to 7MP, for example, the statesmen are as sharp as could possibly be. Please judge the photograph. Please strike this oppose. Colin (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, I was bit hasty on writing the grounds for oppose. After looking at this image for a while, I feel this image should have a different composition. Currently, both statesmen are in the center of the image with Hollande stretching his hands outwards towards the stairs. A better composition would have been with the camera placing the statesmen in the upper 1/3rd of the image and the rest 2/3rd with the stairs. This would give more negative space in the image. See image notes for more details.
    @Jebulon I am surprised you mentioned the word dogmatic. Is it not true that FPC reviews on Commons are often filled with dogma? Some users oppose just because of a tiny amount of CA. Some expect white snow and white clouds to be under-exposed. Some refuse to put the rulebook away even when the image is historical and compelling. Havent we used even more weirder reasons for opposing images. You did oppose this intially. I too, did oppose a couple of Quartl's images for reasons not mentioned in the rulebook. Although this image became FP on the 2nd nomination. The second oppose in the first nom was absurd and invalid IMO. And even more suprisingly, that oppose came from an admin which was concurred by another admin.

"Admin" ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator --Jovian Eye _storm 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know, but I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think I'm an admin ? i'm not.--Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin Opposing on grounds of EXIF is not new at Commons. I remember one of Hzell's shell image being opposed because it was shot at the smallest apertures something like f/29 or f/32. Users were complaining of diffraction at full size. Subsequently, Hzell reshot the whole shell and it did get featured. --Jovian Eye _storm 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be new but it shouldn't be accepted as a reason for oppose. Ever. If diffraction caused the shells to lack sharpness then the lack of sharpness should be the reason to oppose, not the laws of physics based on some computer data uploaded along with the image. I have absolutely no problem with folk commenting on how the image might be improved had it been shot differently (composition, lens choice, aperture choice, etc). But the voting criteria must remain on the image itself. I'm not particularly interested in previous voting patterns or defending ones position by attacking another's, or by exposing inconsistencies in voting or even hypocritical remarks. Please guys, let's vote on the actual image before us. And if we disagree with another vote/comment, then we should be free to say so without such comments or their response ever getting personal. Your list of dogmatic is interesting and don't you think we all fall into traps sometimes. We are all at different stages of maturity wrt photography and photographic criticism. We learn off each other. Which is why it is important to respond to a mistaken reason for opposing. And next time, if someone expects eye-hurtingly-bright white clouds to be within the dynamic range of a 8-bit jpg, and opposes for that reason, then perhaps it would be valid to point this out too. Colin (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovian Eye: I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

This being said, the sunny conditions that apply on this image are not the same than those you'll find on the shadow on the porch, in the same series. This, and the wish to have sharp images when people or vehicles move, make the choice quite acceptable in my view. I think that you might not be grasping the urgency and uniqueness of the moment. Rama (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The background is very dark and people may not wait for a long time; so a faster (1/3200s) exposure may be needed. @Jebulon: Please avoid words like dogmatic; a lot of people (like User:Saffron Blaze, I afraid) are leaving this place due to these type of heated arguments. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)answered by private message--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Jebulon did anything wrong, and his challenge of that oppose reason is pefectly acceptable and to be encouraged (otherwise the poor nominator has to suffer wrongful opposes with nobody standing up). What was wrong was the resulting personalisation of the issue as a defensive response. What we need to be better at is discussing the picture, and issues raised regarding the the picutre, without anyone needing to respond with a "but you said ... " or "but your photos are just as...", sort of response. If we don't discuss these things, then there's really no community, and that would be the biggest reason to leave. Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical