Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet, 1940245.jpg

File:Ballet, 1940245.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 15:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is quite nice, but at this resolution I have a problem with the level of quality; I just don't think it's one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that quality is acceptable and in this area we don't have much, so a plus for me for originality Poc o² 19:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine for 10 years ago but not acceptable for a studio image from 2017. Our guidelines strongly discourage downsizing. High JPG compression and posterised lighting. No colourspace specified/embedded. Yann, none of our Commons regular photographers would get away with nominating 3.95MP studio image in 2018. Why don't you try contacting the photographer to upload their 16MP original (assuming it is like their other photos) and we can then judge it against what the finest photographers on Commons are nominating in 2018. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: What makes you know that it is a studio image (i.e. not a real show)? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because all their other photos are studio photos. And the lighting. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That this is staged was my first reaction to it. Had it been a real show, there wouldn't have been a wall that close behind the dancers. The flow of her hair and the fabric would also require a big fan or wind machine, you don't get that from motion alone. Plus the light, stage spotlights create much harder shadows than this. (I've seen hundreds of ballets and danced myself, so gut feeling.) --Cart (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I wasn't sure. Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Very obvious posterization. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral torn between Diego and Colin... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basically per Poco. The only weakness (I agree) is the resolution. It's only a 4 Mpx image, well. But the minimum accepted here is 2 Mpx, necessary for a good quality print. That's twice bigger than the minimum. Sure it's not huge, it's not 4K for example. But this is clearly a professional picture, taken with technical accessories, and rarer thing, involving professional dancers. How many of us regular photographers take and nominate on Commons such kind of original pictures ? This image is special in its kind, and will be interesting to enrich the collection, because it doesn't look like any other. I also rather like the composition with the red scarf floating in the wind and the entwined people choreographing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Basile Morin, question. Are you going to commit from now on to only reviewing other images here at 3.95MP, i.e. long axis no larger than 2400px. That means never again complaining about noise, CA, sharpness, oversharpening halos, etc, etc. Because, from 24/36/42/50MP camera downsized to 3.95MP, none of those things will be visible. The 2MP standard was set when a TV resolution was 720 × 525 (0.38MP) and HDTV wasn't available. This doesn't even fit a QHD monitor, never mind the 4K TVs being sold in supermarkets. This resolution is too low to print even one page of a glossy magazine. How about if the rest of us started uploading at 3.95MP too ... would you still support? I agree it is a well taken image, if a bit contrived/unrealistic, but I don't see why the photographer can't be asked to upload the 16MP original. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpness, noise, etc. are important to take in consideration when the size of the image is essential. Landscapes for example. This kind of picture is special, perhaps limit with the size, and of course it would be better to get a higher res, but in the uncertainty I decide to support as it is -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]