Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Grande roue de Montréal1.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2019 at 15:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Today I think that's me who is trite and boring. Nice image. But it lacks a litlle thing, maybe a better light. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose, more or less per A.Savin (though I don't find the side crops very tight). I feel like the tricky thing about this kind of photo is that to be great, the positions of the pedestrians should aid the composition. I don't think they do in this instance, which makes this photo certainly IMO good but not exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose IMHO the image was taken to close to the ferris wheel and the random crowd in the foreground disturbs the scenery, resulting in an overall generic look. There are plenty of great shots of the Grande roue de Montréal taken on top or even behind of the bridge leading to it. The blue sky works quite well with the snow-covered environment, but I think the ferris wheel will look great under almost all light conditions (blue hour, golden hour, sunset, sunrise, etc.) Definitely worth a second try! Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: Ikan Kekek, Christoph Braun, I can't quite agree with the criticism regarding the presence of a (relatively small) group of people. This is a major tourist attraction in Montreal, and to expect that no people be present, as if it were some sort of pristine wilderness, is a bit counter-intuitive. If anything, it would make the scene look sterilized and post-apocalyptic. I believe the people are well-integrated into the scene: they occupy only a small portion of it, nobody is cut off and nobody is obscuring any part of the main subject. I really don't see how the people are any more distracting than the conifer trees, for instance. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Cosmonaut I didn't say that I expected the absence of people. A well-positioned single person, a small group or a couple can improve the composition and provide a sense of scale. In this case however, the pedestrians look rather generic. Furthermore, thanks to technological advances like ND filters, even crowded places can be photographed without people in the final image. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christoph Braun: the ND technique would require the exposure time set to a few minutes to remove the slow-moving objects, like pedestrians. For this very brightly-lit scene with lots of whites, it would mean having the smallest possible aperture, which would inevitably lead to degradation of the image quality. For me, it doesn't seem like a meaningful sacrifice just to clear a very small part of the scene of people. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cosmonaut Changing the aperture won't be necessary with the appropriate ND-filter. A similar outcome can be achieved by taking multiple shots of the same scene and blending them in Photoshop/GIMP. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christoph Braun, true, that would work, but the question of the necessity of it remains... Do you have an example of a FP, where the presence of tourists in a very touristy place is not generic? I linked to this photo below, and I honestly don't see any difference. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cosmonaut That's exactly why I would have voted against that one as well. Here are some examples where integrating people into a composition went rather well. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christoph Braun: well, at least you're consistent :-) And yes, these are good examples. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cosmonaut QED. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I posted very clearly what I thought about the people, which is not that it's a problem there were people in the photo. I really can't see how I could have been much clearer, other than if I suggested a specific position of people that would help the composition (but why on Earth would I do that?), but if anyone is sincerely confused, tell me what language seemed confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, you nominated this image, and it passed with no opposition (deservedly so). Would you care to elaborate how the specific position of the tourists is different? It's every bit is as random and generic. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - Of course these things are very subjective. But I don't agree with you that the positions of the people are equally random in that photo. They are along the sides and in the front, thereby actually helping the form by working with the lines. The only one who damages the composition somewhat is the woman in the near left, but she is still not really in the center, and the five tall spires on either side have such a strong effect on the viewer that the damage is greatly attenuated. In taking a photo of a ferris wheel, you inevitably have to be further from it, so that the people come between the camera and the ferris wheel in a way that's different in degree and even arguably kind than is the case with the photo of the top of the Milan Duomo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did you read the comment I wrote when nominating that photo? "Daniel Case has been taking many photographs that either focus on the tourists or fit the paradigm of 'landscape with people'. In this case, the people are much less important than the fantastic tall spires on the duomo's roof, but their presence creates a rhythm for the viewer's eyes, so neither he nor I think it damages the composition, and it's also a way of acknowledging the elephant - or, well, crowd - in the room, which is not always best to ignore." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how the distribution of the tourists, who are predominantly on the left and in the centre, with barely anyone on the right, aids the very symmetrical architectural theme, but I appreciate you taking the time to express your view. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's essential for there to be exact symmetry of tourists in that situation. I judge photos mostly by how I can move my eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:La_Grande_roue_de_Montréal1.jpg&oldid=384645707"