Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche Zollverein trees and grass ICM impression.JPG

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Zeche Zollverein trees and grass ICM impression.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 10:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
You're welcome :) ★Poyekhali 11:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment It's definetely a photograph if the latter's defined as a "process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)." I wouldn't even say it's that much "manipulated". I merely panned the image vertically during an exposure time of 1/5s. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiril See my comment on the Bluebells ICM. It isn't "manipulated" in the sense people mean here (post processing). All photographs are a manipulation of time. Whether 1/6000th second or 1/2 second or 30 seconds. Only photography can choose to freeze a brief moment in time, if one wishes to. Reality is continuous. It should be evaluated as a photograph, just don't think so conservatively about what a photograph is. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colin: I'm fine with the "manipulation" if it results into something interesting. In this case, the thing is that this looks nice to me compositionally as a work of art that fits good to my eyes regardless of whether it is a photograph or painting. However, I'd like to make sure that this is something that we allow for FP. I agree with you that my definition for a photograph is a bit conservative and that's probably another factor for my hesitancy about such innovative works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intent was not to be unfair to you or anyone else here and I explained that the term "manipulation" does not have any negative meaning in my comment bellow. I may be wrong about using the term for this but I assure you that it wasn't supposed to be something derogatory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment When I made this nom, no one questioned if it was a photograph. Motion is relative, in one photo the subject is moving and in another it is the camera. They both result in an unusual photo. --cart-Talk 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Painting not by means of brush and easel but by camera and tripod. Well done. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I agree that there's some artistic value, but I'm just now wowed when I can't see anything. To really like an effect like this, I'd want an object that is clearly discnerable, but blurred for effect.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per all the reasons I supported the other one. This one surprises even more with that neon-green spot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Regretful oppose Might definitely be catchy in an art gallery, but I think not here or not in this category. If we will fill the "Natural" category with FPs like this, then I think we will start destroying what this community has already created. In my eyes, pictures like this should have their own category and doesn't fit among clear pictures we currently have. And yes, I really like it and would absolutely buy a ticket to the exhibition filled with such mystical works of art. Thanks for some pleasure therapy to my eyes as this one clearly is pleasant and not something painful for sight as we recently had in another nomination. -- Pofka (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - Surprising, and particularly compelling to me at full size. And as with the other nomination, I don't think questions about what category to feature the photo in are good arguments against a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1. If people are iffy about putting this photo together with the rest of the pics in 'Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural', I don't see why we can't add a sub cat at the bottom named 'Other' (Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Other). We have that option in some other main FP categories for odd files like Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others. --cart-Talk 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   CommentHi Martin Falbisoner, I am not an expert on art or photography, I found your picture interesting, beauty and I understand that producing this kind of image requires effort, knowledge and talent. But as I say this only my personal opinion I love about 95% of FP pictures in fact I love the 4 examples that you selected, I found in the examples lines and shapes very well defined and a nice light distribution my soul finds joy on this pictures I am sorry I don't feel the same about your picture, please don't get offended by my totally subjective personal opinion on a type of picture I don´t know how to describe this, so I choose the expression “too abstract” but only as an intent to express my personal feelings, best regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ivar, Pofka, thanks for your vote! Maybe you'd like to take into consideration that - should this nom turn out to be successful - the image would not be placed into a "regular" nature category. I've created a special ("other") section that is linked to "photographic effects". So there would be a clear distinction. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Zeche_Zollverein_trees_and_grass_ICM_impression.JPG&oldid=254942772"