Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cadillac Ranch- Flickr - katsrcool.jpg

File:Cadillac Ranch- Flickr - katsrcool.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 10:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by katsrcool - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. --Selbymay (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but per Selbymay. --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Severely overdone HDR effect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to go out on a limb: We're meant to be a file repository for all sorts of projects. While this isn't encyclopedic, that's not really a consideration we have here, and this could be useful for a variety of graphic design uses. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that no graphic design editor would pick this. The HDR halo effect is particularly amateurish. This isn't just a random file repository: images should have some educational purpose. If the only educational purpose is to highlight the creator's lack of skill or unusual taste then that isn't a redeeming feature. Search "Cadillac Range" on Google Images or even on Commons. In what way do you think this represents our finest images? Colin (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure I've seen such things used for covers psychadelic books. Things along the lines of en:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. As I said, I think you may be being a bit normative in image evaluation; this is a recognisable style. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this isn't an original-art project, nor is it a stock photo library for graphic design. It is out of scope, as well as being amateurish even for its style. Colin (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This HDR is overdone, it is so overdone it is noisy everywhere, saturation is way off, this picture only illustrate very well the vomit of colours HDR can do while not well done. Please Adam strike your vote we don't need this obvious {{FPX}} to stay for 10 days here. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and PierreSelim.--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Kyro (talk)
Oppose Would only use this picture to illustrate how badly HDR can look if wrongly done. Maybe can be used as a colorblindness test, but I worry that watching this picture too much would cause epilepsy. Léna (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lena. Illustrate how badly HDR can look if wrongly done. O2 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should probably nominate the picture as Valued image in scope wrong HDR is wrong. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did anyone think that perhaps the image was done like this on purpose? I've looked at the guys other HDR pics, and they are great. This was obviously done to be outlandish, which fits in with the whole Cadillac Canyon theme. C'mon, Cadillacs stuck in the ground in the middle of the Texas desert, and which the owner encourages to graffiti. It's out there! And I get this pic! russavia (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know they are done on purpose. Even if one likes the extreme HDR style, the obvious halos round the cars are an artefact one would try to avoid or fix. I've looked at the guy's other HDR pics and they often suffer from similar issues. If it makes him happy and folk like his art then great. But this is original art and Commons isn't Flickr. Colin (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know that it is very processed, but I'm a big fan of HDR and I really do like this image overall. I've seen plenty of better HDR images, but I have to (partly) agree with Adam Cuerden and Russavia on this one. Michael Barera (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not overprocessed, it's processed the best it can for this purpose. It's a rare case of psychedelic art on Commons and it's obviously very good case. When you'll consider it as a psychedelic art, you'll see it's done exactly how it's supposed to be done. When you'll see it as a straight photo of this place it's indeed bad photo. This place needs more LSD. I means Commons, the ranch has enough of it. Surprisingly it's difficult to take photo of visions, so people have to use effects which aren't just a copy of sight after psychedelics, but it's poetry as well, which is understood naturally by the users. Objects are glowing with energy and you don't see that, you feel that. The example poetry in this photo is that glow, which brings memories back, even though it looks different while being hypersober. Krzysiu (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Best support comments ever! Right on, man! russavia (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain your support in terms of Commons:Project scope and Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines. This is not Flickr. Colin (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Flickr is not that much bad. And people are free to support/oppose neglecting all the rules/guidelines. -- J Kadavoor J e e 05:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And the HDR is wrongly done...--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool shot, could have been a Pink Floyd CD cover but there isn't FP quality I'm afraid. --A.Savin 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR is way too arty here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]