Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus Trajan.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus Trajan.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 21:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Info All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, Roman Emperor Trajan (53-117)-- Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose no not for the canvas colour. but for nasty flash reflections and lacking level adjustment. any chance of a reshot? uploading a transparent canvas version would be very nice. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, i didn't use flash. Maybe could you have a quick look to the original file, in the description page ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • hmm usually opera's display of metadata works. seems to be some sort of daylight reflections then. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I don't understand the word "hmm". Does it mean that you doubt I talk the truth ? If not, may I understand that you oppose because of daylight reflections over old and polished marble ? Well... Thanks for review. Let's wait for other opinions. Regards,--Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "métadonnées" (metadata) of the file description page says "Flash: flash non déclenché, suppression du flash obligatoire" (no translation needed, IMO). I'm disappointed to notice that the expression of the result of your review was maybe not wise enough...regards,--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • hmm is an interjection meaning that one ponders about something (at least it is in german). in this case i was simply astonished by opera not displaying the correct metadata. after your comment i used the wikidisplay for metadata and adobe bridge to double check. and yes i do oppose because of those reflections. the wrinkles and pleats benefit from this, but the bottom of the statue does not. perhaps reshooting on a rainy day or using a reflector could help here. still my opinion has not changed - the reflections (the source does not matter in this context) and the levels is what prevents me from supporting. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support The background's a bit dark, distracts a bit, but the quality is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment -- I don't think the background color is the best. The base is dark and with that background, when you are looking at Trajan's face, it gets confused into it. Did you choose brown because the base was already blue? It is a very dark blue. I tried blueish because the cloth on his shoulders were brown, also tried light brown, light yellow... None convinced me. The base has already, by itself, a nice color contrast (brown vs blue) but if you let the base be seen then the face losses attention. If, on the other hand you use some dark backgroundd to let the face be seen then the base suffers. A vertical gradient convince me better. Dark on top, lighter the bottom. You brown is fine although I liked better the face with a deep blue to white gradient. Grinatyou (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose -- Bildiğim kadarıyla resimdeki hükümdarı tasvir eden nice güzel resim mevcut. Böyle olmasa bile arka plan rengi rahatsız edici. Açının ve kompozisyonun da yeterli iyilikte olduğunu düşünmüyorum. Saygılar.Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral background colour is problematic. Photo may be useful if this was changed. In the future, the use of a polarizing filter may help with reflections from daylight on objects. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very good background in look at full resolution (not thumb preview) --George Chernilevsky talk 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Good technical quality. Not too happy about the background color, although it is a bold choice! The subject itself: It does not really catch my eye. I have no constructive or good ideas how to make it more interesting to look at. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Sorry, it is not a helpful comment, IMO. A   Neutral vote, or an abstention should have been more appropriate. You say that you have not real opposing reason, but you oppose ? Because of your feeling that it is a boring subject (to be polite) ? The expression I have no constructive or good ideas how to make it more interesting to look at is very and unnecessary hurtful to me. Thank you, but I don't need your help for that, because it is interesting enough to me (and maybe to others here), despite your contemptuous words. Well, may I now oppose (for instance) every panorama here, because nothing in panoramas catch my eyes, and because I think (for instance) that so deformed pictures are an insult for every normal brain ? Until today, I didn't vote in this cases, but it will change maybe, using your current vote as a jurisprudence. --Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Hi Jebulon. I think you are overreacting or maybe it is just another one of those multilingual miscommunications? Do I find the photo "boring". Since you ask directly: "Yes". I did not want to write that explicitly as I found that would not be helpful. It is probably possible for the subject to be visualized in a manner, which would make it feature-worthy according to my preferences. I wish I could provide explicit directions as to what could be done in that respect. That is something, which I can sometimes do. In this case I have no specific idea. I would probably have to see the subject in real life to get some. That is what I tried to express in my review. In the future, please assume good faith and ask me for clarification on an explanation if you feel an image is being reviewed unfair by me. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you should oppose images you do not find feature-worthy, nomatter what the reason is for you not fancying them. If you are turned off by the geometric distorion in some panoramas, i think it is fair to oppose for that reason. I think it is a misunderstanding to abstain to vote from such nominations as a tacit oppose. Better make it explicit. The opposing reason can often provide feedback for the nomintor, which he may use in future work. That is how many "old" users here have improved over time. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear about one thing. It is the photo I am opposing, not you. I think you are a great contributor, and I think I have mentioned that on more than one occasion on your talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Do not panic and assume good faith. please do not drag this opposition down to a personal level - Slaunger critiqued your image not you as a person. speaking in terms of the guideline he simply does not see a wow-factor within your image. be reminded that telling other people how to vote and their comments being not helpful can be very and unnecessary hurtful to them as well. if other users vote with no strong arguments from your poi, it's not a call for a generalization of your votes on certain subjects. each fpc needs careful checking to return a verdict: this can be a process of critique close to the guideline or the expression of mere feelings and thinkings. you must not see my comment as a personal offense either - it is about improving the situation and finding a better solution. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two months ago, this picture was featured with 11 support, 0 oppose, and 1 neutral. Would you please begin a delist procedure ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support They are shown on an exceptional subject and ... they look at the background. If the background is black is too black. If it is degraded, you are asked a black background. If you surrender then another contributor will suggest making it white. The backgrounds are subjective assessments. If there is no technical foul, then let's focus on the subject. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support @Jebulon assume good faith even you feel that there is no good faith. I.e. the comments "this image is no wow for me", "let the poor thing breath" etc etc are funny comments ;-).. Assume when somebody gives a comments "this image is no wow for me" that means that the general composition is not good enough aesthetically. When says about "a little thing that does not breath.." means that (s)he likes more space in the sides etc.. But IMO you have to ignore most of the comments because they limit your creativity.. In the creativity there are not rules saying things about noise, crop, wow factor (and excellent image can be minimal), composition rules, tilt (there are image ie [1] is completely tilt and is a famous image of Koudelka).. I.e. if this example of image (by Koudelka) will be an image from a user in commons.. there will be comments because of the tilt, may-be because of the grain (noise in film terminology) etc.. Ggia (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Marcus_Ulpius_Nerva_Traianus_Trajan.jpg&oldid=46451440"