Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Urheilupuisto metro station (Nov 2017, 1).jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Urheilupuisto metro station (Nov 2017, 1).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 17:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but for me not sharp enough for FP. Btw: it is a good Q1-photo. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - It's a large file. I think it's sharp enough, and I really like the long sight line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Oppose - Nice compo but plenty of CA on the lamps and unfortunately not very sharp.--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   weak support see note, I'd suggest a tighter crop that helps get rid of unecessary elements and strengthen the compo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I find it an excellent picture with a smart composition divided in thee vertical parts: colours are bright and the presence of few people gives more warmth to the photo. All the right part is interesting with its colours and decorations, the left part shows that this is actually a metro station. Well done.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I don't think it is quite at the level of most of our other similar metro FPs. There are others that are no sharper than this, but it would have been a plus if it was sharper. However, I think the station either needs to be empty of people or else they are helping the picture. Here the eye is led towards a random clump of people facing away from the camera wearing dark clothes. It would have really made this photo if we had a larger couple walking towards us (or the train) and colourfully attired. -- Colin (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment This matter of sharpness starts being annoying. Even the Last supper by Da Vinci is not sharp. I ask you all to reconsider your ways of judging a photograph Paolobon140 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paolobon140, I kind of agree that sharpness shouldn't be a reason to oppose this. If we look at the many other metro photos we have, most of them are no better. Often this is because tripod photography is not permitted, or longer exposures mean people aren't sharp. I share your despair about pixel peeping and have written about it here. If you note my review carefully says that if this was sharper that would have been a plus. We are drawn to the people in the image, both because we are drawn to people anyway and because the lines lead us there, and they are disappointing -- soft dark shapes walking away from the camera, overlapping with more distant people. Interior photography at FP level does I think require some patience and perseverance to capture the scene when quiet or when the other people are cooperating. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, i understand your point of view but i think we should start talking about this catchphrase about sharpness. A picture talks by itself, and sometimes sharpness is not a plus or its even a minus. Ok, i will take a close portrait of an aged woman, lets say about 60 years old: what kind of lens will you use? I would use a 100 mm softfocus lens, which is intended to reduce sharpness, in order to avoid to show the old lady how old she is in her photograph. The result will be a good possibly unsharp portrait where an aged lady doesnt show all the wrinkles etc. I might even use a red filter in addition if im shooting black and white, which is reducing sharpness even more. Then i will post that photo here. What will i get? A number of "oppose" becasue the photo is not as sharp as the people here like? Colin, i find you a very good counterpart here in discussing about photography, so can you please answer this question of mine? And whou will tell the impressionists that their paints were nt good becasue not sharp enough? Paolobon140 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my essay on pixel peeping I tried to separate "bold subjects" from "detailed subjects" to consider what level of perfection we might need/expect in an image at pixel level. And of course there are other groupings such as impressionistic or portrait photography. When I mention a "plus" for sharpness (detail), I'm thinking of the sort of image that could well be blown up huge and enjoyed in great detail and I've taken a few of them myself. But for many pictures I'd be happy if it prints in high quality at A4, say. In my experience, portrait photographs get a rather hard time at FPC and very few of us reviewers have ever tried to take any such photos for FP. So you can work out for yourself that review comments for those are likely not based on personal experience, unlike the dozens of photos of architecture for example. I'm afraid your 100mm soft focus photography has gone out of fashion and we are expected to pay $1500 for this or this super sharp lenses, and the Photoshop the result. So yes, your soft focus grandma may well be killed at FPC. But sometimes not: FPC is a roulette wheel. I think if your old lady was an interesting enough subject and you displayed great skill with lighting, then you'd have people going wow before they click the magnify button on their browser. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paolobon140, if you want to get acquainted with what sort of photos get promoted to FP without having perfect sharpness, you should take a look at the work of Tomascastelazo. His photos often have such intensity and wow that sharpness comes a distant second. Examples: 1, 2. Or the work of Ggia with photos like these: 1, 2. Sharpness in photos is only a factor when it is possible, expected or vital for the composition. It is not always demanded for FPs (examples: 1, 2). --cart-Talk 22:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm most certainly no stickler for petty pixel peeping, I don't think we should deliberately disregard all technical qualifications when assessing an image. I do agree that overall sharpness tends to be an overrated category though. That being said, I (personally) would not use a soft focus lens (or "secretaries' prettifier" as my organization's old photographer used to quip). Ever. But that may be a matter of taste. Paolobon140, please do go ahead and nominate bold images. But please don't be too disappointed if the roulette wheel turns against you. Been there myself, done that myself, experienced that myself. So did Colin and many others... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paolobon140: I agree with most of what Colin, W.carter and Martin Falbisoner wrote above. Commons FPC already sets itself apart from similar places at the Wikipedias by requiring some kind of wow-factor. That's a pretty subjective thing and people are used to see the "wow" in a beautiful landscape, a well-reproduced painting or even in technical perfection (focus-stacked HDR extreme macro). But the Wikimedia projects have always been more about content than about form, so it is difficult for some people (including myself, I guess) to get away from that and see the "wow" in the photograph itself. I think the appreciation for those "bold" nominations has been growing considerably lately, though. Heck, I almost managed to get the star for a massively grainy film shot taken on a semi-functioning SLR from the sixties ;-) I, for one, would very much welcome more photographic "wow", so please keep 'em coming! --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Like Mile, but vice versa. Composition OK, but sharpness too low. --A.Savin 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Urheilupuisto_metro_station_(Nov_2017,_1).jpg&oldid=271532995"