Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pedrete corona clara - Nyctanassa violacea 02.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Pedrete corona clara - Nyctanassa violacea 02.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 18:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nyctanassa violacea in a mangrove biome, or manglar
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I am not much for having to explain photographs, but in this case I will because I think a lot of people are not really conscious of many variables that make a good photograph good beyond pixel peeping and stricktly technical issues (and here mainly centered around the file itself, in other words, too much attention on form and not substance). Mangroves are very thick vegetation environments, monochromatic (green) and visually impenetrable. Mangroves are very difficult to appreciate from the inside, so we basically look at them from the open looking in, and what we see is lots and lots of green. Hidden inside the mangroves are countless species of wild life, birds, iguanas, crocodyles, insects and plants. The mangrove is a refuge and provides cover and safety to the wildlife. Mangrove creatures are shy and keep their distance from humans as much as possible. I also notice that most pictures isolate the wildlife from their environment, and I think that to be a mistake. Wildlife and environment go together. So, in this case, some may say that the bird is too small, and yes, it is and it would be if it were a photograph of just the bird. This is a photograph of the bird and its environment, its home. The relationship of scale or space I chose was for that purpose, for if I were to concentrate on the mangrove itself the bird would be lost in the inmensity of the vegetation, and if I concentrate on the bird then the mangrove could not be appreciated. I hope this is a happy medium. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment For the sake of encyclopedic clarity, there should be some more information on the file page. "Manglars" is "mangrove swamp/biome" in English but I can't understand what "Pedrete corona clara" is decribing, my Spanish is not that good. It would also be very useful to know where the photo was taken. Is it from La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico, like this one? Could you please add something about this. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Also also ... has it been downsized? Is there a reason for the submitted size, given that so much of the background is shown and not cut away anyway?--Peulle (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I totally get your point, but I think you could get a better composition and still make the point if you cropped a little more, particularly on the right (I understand head room, but the bird is not flying, so I don't think you need much head room). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ikan Kekek, that is my point, I have many photographs that are much closer, but my idea here is to represent both the complexity of the environment with relation to the bird. When one first approaches the mangrove is is just a blob of green, and as you close in the birds start appearing here and there, often briefly, and dart back to the inside. All they have to do is step back inches in order to dissapear. So my intention is to represent both, bird and vegetation in a visually pleasant proportion. This photograph here [[1]] is an example of the problem. Do you see the bird? Decent general shot of the mangrove, but too little bird.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm traveling and browsing with my Android right now. On this small screen, I'm not seeing a bird in the photo you linked, but I am seeing what looks to me like a beautiful composition. I'm all about the composition, from an artistic point of view. A purely utilitarian approach that's most obviously encyclopedic is good for FP on Wikipedia or possibly​ VI. We simply differ on this photo being an outstanding composition. (And parenthetically, as a former resident of rural Malaysia, I'm quite familiar with mangroves and used to dig for clams regularly in one with my friends.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment FPC is not Wikipedia and we don't need a whole encyclopedic article to promote each nomination here. No need to convince before consideration. When a picture is really good, then it gets promoted. There are enough honest reviewers around to guarantee a large diversity of opinions. Revenge votes with wacky reasons are quite easily spotted, and rarely help to make one's point. But looking at this bird, it seems a bit lost among thousand of leaves. We can see the maximum length of a small telephoto 70-200 was reached, and then the picture cropped or downsized from 15 to 6,5 Mpx. Thus it gives the feeling that the photographer was unable to approach closer, but however justifies the shot with long and annoying theories. Concerning the mangrove, is the main topic this vegetation ? If yes, then there's nothing special in this green texture. And if it's the bird, then it's not big enough to appreciate the details. In any case, the sharpness is not excellent, and the light very ordinary. So for a small size like this, our promoted birds are usually much more interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentBasile Morin I find your comment interesting, and to a point stupid. I will start with your suggestion that I did a revenge vote on you, which is not the case, and to call my reason for oppose wacky shows that at least you know nothing about me, which is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is far from the truth. If before writing this revenge comment you had taken the time to read what I wrote about scale and proportion, it would have saved you some time instead of lecturing me on photographic technique. Cropping is an acceptable practice used to achieve a visual objective in order to center on the message of the image, and that is what I did here. Had the display been much larger, then I would have not cropped the image the way I did, but considering the viewing scale, I find that proportion of subjects adequate for the circumstances. That was the motive of my initial comment. I just happen to like mangroves and I get to spend some time in them, and the reason for my upload was to share on the difficulty of recording both, wildlife, and mangrove visual reality. Mangroves can be both, very simple and very confusing, depending on how you approach them. From the air, mangroves are just a big blob of green, for example [[2]], closing in from the waterside, one only sees the very edge of the mangrove and not much else, for example here [[3]], but then things get a little confusing once you reach the edge, like here [[4]], and if you can find your way in a little further, the reflexions drive youi nuts, like here [[5]], but once you really step into the mangrove, this is what you see [[6]]. However, if you are lucky, you start discovering the wonderful things hidden inside, like this termite nest [[7]], and if you are really lucky, you could come across some nests and eggs and chics like here [[8]], but you better be careful, so you don´t step on some of the local creatures like this [[9]] or this [[10]]. But I guess looking for birds and crocs from afar is safer, like here [[11]] or here [[12]]. So, I will listen to your sage advice and will not bother with my annoying theories. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment During my time here at FPC, I've seen many different views on how a nomination should be presented. Some say "let the photo speak for itself", some argue that a nominator should be able to explain why a photo should be promoted, others want some explanation about the photo to better understand what is shown since not all voters read the file page and there are also those who can ask for an explanation as to why a photo is special if no info is given. I think it's up to each nominator to decide how much info they want to give when starting a nomination. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many links. I wouldn't say they're "stupid", but definitely redundant and embarrassing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per nom and the "happy medium". The chosen approach is convincing imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons FPC certainly has its own style and way of dealing with photos, a way not always shared by the world outside the forum. I have tried several similar "combination nominations" before (all turned down) so I'm happy that someone else has the guts to try it. However I think the nominated category should be changed to better fit into the system here. The 'Animals' and 'Plants' categories are mostly ultra sharp mugshots of critters and growing things; this is a photo of a habitat, a mixture of both, and it is more suited for the '/Places/Natural' category. Please change if you agree with this. And don't crop it, I like the non-center placing of the bird. :) --Cart (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pedrete_corona_clara_-_Nyctanassa_violacea_02.jpg&oldid=309929633"