Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 22:40:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Pick up a New Scientist magazine and there's a good chance the front cover is (or some of the articles contain) an artistic illustration or a surreal photograph. For example, their article on migraine. You can't take a photograph of a migraine. An educational picture editor will choose an image that helps the reader engage with the material, process and store the information they are reading. Sometimes the image helps that process, rather than being the information itself.
If you are British, then bluebell woodland represents Spring, the local natural environment, protected wildflowers, family walks, natures bold colours. And the above image can illustrate those without being an image of the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire, 10 May 2015. Without going too "contemporary art bollocks", what you get out of an image like this, is partly what you bring to it yourself. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I wish this could go into category Physics. Since its about Optics. cat "Places" isnt so good chosen, you show us technique, place is of other importance. We have 3 "space" cats, and none of Physics. Well, till then... --Mile (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I feel this is a good example of intentional camera movement (ICM) (and currently illustrates the Wikipedia article on the subject), I hope it can be appreciated more than just as an example of a photographic technique. If Commons is to embrace its mission of being a comprehensive repository of educational media, then it needs to contain more than just perfectly exposed, sharply rendered photographers of some object. There are so many missing "featured" categories, it is hard to know where to begin. Go to iStockPhoto and click on a category like Nature or Lifestyle. You won't find a picture of a specific woodland or a picture of a specific person. You find images (mainly of people) that deliver an emotion. And most of our featured images deliver very little in the way of emotion. Take the images young woman standing in a field or bike at the summer meadow. These aren't photographed to illustrate "lens flare", or to illustrate an article on young women or on bikes. But there's an educational use for them for sure. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomascastelazo's image File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg - is classified under "Natural phenomena", but is all you see just heavy rain? How does it make you feel? I want more of this on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let´s look at this from several perspectives. We feature pictures of different types of architecture, and there is no one right way to architecture. We feature paintings from different schools, abstract, classical, impressionism, etc., and there is no one correct way to painting... The medium to represent those and many other themes is through the camera, through photography. But it turns out that photography, besides being a medium, is also a legitimate art form, just as painting, as music, as architecture. So why not feature photography not just as a representation medium of other art forms but for the art of photography itself? Photography has its own language, capable of not just registering "reality" but also capable of having its own discourse. My support of this image springs from there, from the recognition of the art of photography. If we deny the art of photography, we may as well deny all art. Not that everyone has to like it, just as not everyone appreciates architecture, or types of architecture, but we cannot ignore its place in the world of art. Like it or not, know it or not, should or should not, it has its little corner there. Have a look #REDIRECT[[1]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support This is right on the Monet  . Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Category Places is not useful. This doesn't show a place, but a technique. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't show a photographic technique any more than Diliff's cathedral photographs show an HDR stitched megapixel technique. It may be an example of a technique, but that's a very secondary aspect, and not why I took the picture. But worrying about what classification to put it in, is really tomorrows problem, and quite irrelevant to whether or not this is a fine image. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My HDR technique helps to see the cathedral more clearly and with more detail though, and is fairly invisible to the viewer. Your blur technique helps to show the scene less clearly and is fairly dominant in the photo... Your photo illustrates the location poorly, but the effect of the technique well. They're both 'techniques' but they have opposite effects on understanding the place you're viewing. Not saying that's a bad thing. I quite like the effect, and obviously you chose the 'place' to suit the effect but I think Yann is right that the image is more about the technique and the effect than about the place. It's just a category, but I think it has implications for how we view the image too. Out of interest, what are the orange streaks in the grass? Diliff (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't "my blur technique" and isn't even an original subject for the technique. The straight photo is here, which explains the colours. Saying the "photo illustrates the location poorly" is missing the point. The purpose isn't to illustrate the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire on 10 May 2015. Nor, I believe, is its only education function to illustrate a photographic technique. That's like looking at The Scream and thinking only of a painting using oil, tempera, pastel and crayon on cardboard, or complaining it is a poor likeness of a person compared to a studio photograph taken with the latest Canon L portrait lens. There is far more to educational imagery than this conservative approach. -- Colin (talk)
          • @Colin you have a nice fantasy :-) and sorry, but you are not Edvard Munch too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't saying 'your' technique in the sense that you invented it. It's simply yours because you're using it. Also, I agree with you that the purpose of the photo isn't to illustrate "specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate etc", but we were discussing it in the context of what the suitable category is, and if it doesn't illustrate the place well, why is the category 'places'? That's the point I was making. Perhaps we need a new category: "artistic expression". I don't think it's a fair comparison though to think about it like The Scream. That is an established artistic work, and would be categorised as such. We don't need to break that work down to a technique in order to find an educational use for it because it is already notable and as such educational for that reason - it illustrates the work of a notable artist. I don't agree with Alchemist-HP's comments above at all though. I don't think it matters that you're not Edvard Munch. Anyone can create art, and your works don't become art only when others start respecting you as an 'artist'. But I'm not sure that Commons is intended to be a repository for non-notable art. It would have to serve an educational purpose beyond being merely art. I think this image does that though, by being a fairly clear example of the technique. Not all art could necessarily do that. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that media on Commons has to have some educational purpose, whether direct photography, artistic photography, drawing, painting, or video. We already have featured pictures that take a non-direct non-documentary approach to photography. For example:
Now I don't want to compare directly with any specific examples above, but just talk generally. We have images where the subject is contrived or the lighting hides detail, where colours are removed or altered, where the subject is obscured through movement or rain. The effect is artistic at the expense of a straight documentary photograph of a regular unaltered subject. But something else is gained, we hope, and educational qualities are altered but not eliminated. Some of us like to (only) take straight photographs that maximize their encyclopaedic value in their opinion. That's fine but not the only way to create educational media. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeodontosaurus, there's no requirement for any image on Commons, nor any featured image on Commons, to have "Encyclopedic interest". That's not the definition of "educational" that we use here. And it is wrong anyway, since the image is in use on Wikipedia, which is more than can be said for many Featured Pictures. To be "educational", the image doesn't have to be a source of information itself, but may help one think about a subject while reading about it. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I did not say she was no sense in what I said was little. I warned the community about promoting this kind of image can be produced in two clicks. We could have quickly large amounts of image such that it will judge in various competitions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your reply very difficult to understand, but I'd like to say that I don't think it matters whether it was difficult to produce or not. What matters is whether it's a useful or educational and of good technical quality. Some great FPs are trivially easy to photograph, some are extremely difficult technical accomplishments. Also, as Colin said, when it comes to usefulness, whether you think it's interesting isn't really the point. I think we (as reviewers) need to think beyond our personal interests and consider whether it could be useful or interesting to others too. Of course our personal interests will factor into how we judge images and it is impossible to completely separate that, but the more objective we can be, the better reviewers we will be. Diliff (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeodontosaurus, we don't care if "no" or "little" "Encyclopaedic interest". It is irrelevant to the question of FP on Commons, and that's not just my opinion, it's our whole ethos at Commons FP which you should know. Encyclopaedic matters on Wikipedia FP only. Some people take "specimen" photos, as you do, and they are valuable and encyclopaedic, but many many other featured pictures on Commons are never destined to appear on Wikipedia nor any other encyclopaedia. Please do not confuse "Encyclopaedic" with "Educational", and for the latter, Commons has an extremely broad interpretation, which includes exploding light bulbs, hazy bridges obscured by rain drops, and lovers caught in a storm.
I find your "two clicks" comment insulting and ignorant. This image was not the result of going out one morning and getting lucky when I dropped my camera; perhaps fortune smiles on you that way. This is the third Spring where I've experimented with ICM in bluebell woods, which are at their best for only about one or two weeks a year. It's a particularly low-success-rate endeavour, and one that requires tweaking the exposure, focal length and focus to get the best results, and trying a variety of locations, angles and lighting conditions. I've taken many dozens of photographs before reaching one I'm happy with. And I spent quality time post-processing this as I do for all my images on Commons. So on one measure, this photo has taken me three years, not "two clicks". Go ahead and mock that if you like; it seems others want to. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to be misspoke. I know your work I really admire. All what you told me, consernant your image, I believe without a doubt. My only message is to draw attention to the risk of seeing our contests invaded by images in two clicks. For cons, I continue to argue that we are primarily in the service of various encyclopedias --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I state that all my FP are used in various items of wikipedia and 90% my QI also. But I think your phrase was very unhappy. As said Oscar Wilde :"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--LivioAndronico talk 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I thought a long time, creative work is a multimedia as useful as an other, I'm very favorable to explore different techniques of photography or edition. I strongly agree with Archaeodontosaurus on the fact we are in the service of various encyclopedias, this is why I give my support here. Explorations of the technical and artistic possibilities of our cameras or hardwares have a big encyclopedic value from my point of view, as well as programing languages or as other knowledges. I support the pleasant image, the technique and the gait... -- Christian Ferrer 20:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for your considered response.-- Colin (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bluebells_ICM,_Ashridge_Estate,_2015.jpg&oldid=162012278"