Wide crop by
SamsaraAn example of what would be a more dynamic and professional composition. -
User:Fcb981Close crop with brightness reduced slightly; added by
Samsara on request
Reason
Great encyclopedic photo. Featured picture on Commons.
Oppose The lighting is too harsh and the background is rather unappealing.
Chris.B (
talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose by Chris.B. And, sorry, it's not very sharp, either. —
αἰτίας•discussion•(Happy new year!) 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I think the lighting is quite good personally. The only real problem is the lack of sharpness. --
Abdominator (
talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Lighting, as well as a pretty plain composition. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not sure what sort of composition you envisage without loss of encyclopaedic qualities. It's a picture of Korean Fir cones. What composition would illustrate this subject better than the one you see here? Also keep in mind that composition is less of a criterion here than at Commons. The focus here is more on encyclopaedic quality.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
have a look at the example file I uploaded. While not the nicest piece of art, it illustrates what would be a better image. With background separation for the cones and with a not as boring centered composition. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a spectacular rendition, Fcb981 :). In general, I think that centered composition works well with flowers or something like this, which usually lack something to balance the composition. I'd prefer a lower viewpoint and larger aperture (as well as better lighting) to bring out the cones.
thegreen J Are you green? 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for uploading the explanatory image. I didn't doubt the validity of your point about lighting, but on Bokeh and composition, we may have to agree to disagree. In this case, I think bokeh could lower the encyclopaedic value of the image. In fact, it's possible that the composition was deliberately chosen to show the relationship of the cone to the tree. Your suggested semi-profile composition of the pair of cones would not keep the tree trunk in view.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the trunk wouldn't be visible, but in the two versions here it certainly isn't obvious, and the semi-profile, as you tersely put it, could easily show the needles in a compelling way. Anyway, thats just my opinion after all. Your argument is legitimate, not seeing eye to eye is no problem. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - technical quality of an image of something so easy to photograph should be higher to be featured.--
Svetovid (
talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Wide crop by
SamsaraAn example of what would be a more dynamic and professional composition. -
User:Fcb981Close crop with brightness reduced slightly; added by
Samsara on request
Reason
Great encyclopedic photo. Featured picture on Commons.
Oppose The lighting is too harsh and the background is rather unappealing.
Chris.B (
talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose by Chris.B. And, sorry, it's not very sharp, either. —
αἰτίας•discussion•(Happy new year!) 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I think the lighting is quite good personally. The only real problem is the lack of sharpness. --
Abdominator (
talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Lighting, as well as a pretty plain composition. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not sure what sort of composition you envisage without loss of encyclopaedic qualities. It's a picture of Korean Fir cones. What composition would illustrate this subject better than the one you see here? Also keep in mind that composition is less of a criterion here than at Commons. The focus here is more on encyclopaedic quality.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
have a look at the example file I uploaded. While not the nicest piece of art, it illustrates what would be a better image. With background separation for the cones and with a not as boring centered composition. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a spectacular rendition, Fcb981 :). In general, I think that centered composition works well with flowers or something like this, which usually lack something to balance the composition. I'd prefer a lower viewpoint and larger aperture (as well as better lighting) to bring out the cones.
thegreen J Are you green? 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for uploading the explanatory image. I didn't doubt the validity of your point about lighting, but on Bokeh and composition, we may have to agree to disagree. In this case, I think bokeh could lower the encyclopaedic value of the image. In fact, it's possible that the composition was deliberately chosen to show the relationship of the cone to the tree. Your suggested semi-profile composition of the pair of cones would not keep the tree trunk in view.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the trunk wouldn't be visible, but in the two versions here it certainly isn't obvious, and the semi-profile, as you tersely put it, could easily show the needles in a compelling way. Anyway, thats just my opinion after all. Your argument is legitimate, not seeing eye to eye is no problem. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - technical quality of an image of something so easy to photograph should be higher to be featured.--
Svetovid (
talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)reply