Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg/2

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 4 Aug 2017 at 06:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info One of the most striking images I've ever seen on Commons - and certainly deserving another shot. If you've ever tried something like that, you certainly understand how difficult it is to create this effect successfully. Colin's work is a truly great photograph that we should appreciate accordingly. A couple of weeks ago I expressed the hope (in our group on facebook) that FPC has become much more open to unconventional yet great motifs. So please do prove me right. Btw., two years ago critics pointed out that there would be no possible encyclopedic value - they were proven wrong. Created and uploaded by Colin, nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 06:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the initiative, Martin, I still support of course. --El Grafo (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Renoir is still painting. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. This photo took three years of attempts each spring -- the bluebells are at their best for only a week or two. I think educational imagery is more than just "A perfect standard reproduction of X for identification purposes in an encyclopaedia" but can also give the impression of a scene or generate emotion, make you stop and look, or enjoy the wonders of physics.. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep! I've always been under the impression that this already was an FP. Silly me! Thanks Martin for setting things straight. --cart-Talk 08:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it - wow. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just not wowed - sorry, that's my personal opinion. On a side note, I have a bit of a Comment: The archive shows that this image was thoroughly discussed with a total of 27 people voting. It was not featured then and no changes has been made to the image since then, so I feel like the image had its chance, no?--Peulle (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first nom was made over two years ago, the Wiki-project has grown, the whole world has changed since then, maybe also the FPC? I wonder if any of my abstract FPs would have been welcome back then. --cart-Talk 14:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For above....strange things for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't do anything with such a strange picture. Not the slightest wow. --Hockei (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer this one --Laitche (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna nominate that one for FP :) ★Poyekhali 10:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A series nom along with File:Bluebells, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg would have also been a good way to handle this, but just taking this photo per se, I find it fascinating, colorful and striking, all of which add up to an excellent photo with wow, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not featured for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fun to make, but not FP. Charles (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can't decide what I think about this type of photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done and well representative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my !vote in the previous FPC. These seem to be a thing lately, at least in the UK, according to the photo magazines I get, and I think having a featurable one like this would be great. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I felt pain in my brain and eyes immediately after watching into this. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jaritz. I really like it. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yes it has been placed in an article but no the technique is not significant enough to warrant being featured on this basis. It would look odd and out of place among the other Nature shots in that category when from the discussion above and the nomination statement, the camera technique is the point being made. seb26 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That reads like an argument for requiring the photo to be featured in a special category, not an argument against featuring the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't represent what I wrote. My opinion is that it is not worthy of being featured regardless, and that additionally if it were under the Nature category it would be an inappropriate fit. seb26 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That special category might be called e.g. «impressionist photography». -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and again ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it and appreciate it! And I also say that as a painter which side of me people here might not know. Too hard for me to give either a support or oppose because I'm still not sure how it suits the motif of this website as a featured one. But personally very inspirative work indeed so I kind of want to encourage experimental stuff too. --Ximonic (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per before. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder why this is not yet an FP --★Poyekhali 10:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Oppose There is nothing more than just a valued image of the photographic effect for me here. Photographs similarly to paintings are supposed to be works of art that have to allow engaging in deep thinking and enjoying while staring at, while this heavily manipulated one makes pain for the eyes in few seconds and does not allow one to concentrate on what is there and what it has to mean. I even think that the original one would be a much better candidate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiril, I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, and it causes you "pain for the eyes" but it is not "manipulated". File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg is "manipulated", and it's a POTY. The above image gives an impression of a bluebell wood in England. That's a valid form of representation imo, though not a common one. At another extreme of photography is File:Army Athletics Long Jumper at The Inter Corps Athletics Competition at Tidworth, Wiltshire MOD 45152793 (cropped).jpg, which gives the 1/6000th second moment a long jumper lands in the sand. It isn't "real" either, because sand doesn't stay absolutely still suspended in the air. It is an effect only possibly with high-speed photography, not human vision, and at one level is just a mess of sand getting in the way of seeing the athlete. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Colin: I praise the effort to create an unusual work of art from a photograph, but I'm sorry to say that this does not work for me at least for an FP (perfect valued image, though). As for the manipulation, most of the FPs we have here are manipulated in some way and no-one has a standardised definition of what "manipulation" stands for. For me personally, the combining of multiple images to produce unrealistic effects is "cheating", while altering a photograph that makes it difficulty to spot the composition normally is "manipulation". I also don't think this term should be taken in a negative connotation, as it is a normal thing done on photographs in the lust of creating something special or of higher quality. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kiril, I have neither "combin[ed] multiple images" nor have I "alter[ed] a photograph". I pressed the shutter while moving the camera. Other photos are taken by pressing the shutter while the subject moves. Any processing was no different to that for a standard image. Only a single image here. I'm not sure you appreciate that the 1/6000th second photo of the athlete is no more "manipulated" or "cheating" than this. Just different ways of observing the world through a camera. See en:Photo manipulation -- this is not that. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nichts zu erkennen --Ralf Roleček 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 11 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]