Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SkodaSuperbII.jpg

File:SkodaSuperbII.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 21:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:SkodaSuperbII.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SkodaSuperbII.jpg

•  Info created by Michel de Vries - uploaded by MicheldeVries at de.wikipedia - nominated by Blackfalcon -- Blackfalcon (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Question © Michel de Vries, shouldn't we have an OTRS-ticket? --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? What has copyright to do with anything? The license is what matters. --Dschwen (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at original uploader's talk page (English), I think an OTRS memeber should check that did the user ever send permission or no.   ■ MMXX^talk  05:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I already did. No reason to be extra suspicious just because there is a (c) sign. --Dschwen (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is the work of a commercial photographer I wold have thought OTRS was a pretty standard requirement as proof of validity of uploaders licensing claims (tineye shows it has been published quite bit). --Tony Wills (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Support excellent shot, even with original EXIF! --Jklamo (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm, I'm not so sure about how original this is. I'd like to se a makin-of of this image. --Dschwen (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –A great advertisement photograph made by a pro with a pro camera, all this with an artistic touch. Thanks to him for sharing his work. Sting (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great professional image. -- JovanCormac 12:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Although I really doubt that it has been exposed for 16 seconds... --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose per Tony Willis --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer" - Is this a digital painting or a photograph? This is not a photograph of a car speeding through a tunnel, but an artistic composition based on a photograph of a car. I seem to see a bunch of onlookers in the reflection in the front left indicator glass. Are those painted 'speed streaks' behind the car? Is the road surface and tunnel wall panning blur just digitally produced motion blur? The wheels appear to be spinning far faster than the background blur would suggest. If the EXIF info doesn't relate to the shot (16 second exposure but no blur due to the vibration of a moving car, no movement of the passengers face?) what does it represent. So a very nice product shot, but the undisclosed manipulation should disqualify it from being a featured picture. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a very valid argument! I must admit I was a bit naive and dazzled by the image. The process of retouching should be made more transparent, especially with such a extreme case. I revise my vote. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That is actually not a valid argument. The image can just as well be taken as a great professional example of automobile product photography. --Dschwen (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Silvereyepairofjuveniles.jpg "deceitful photomaniplation. --Dschwen". Well I don't think either case is particularly "deceitful". In the case of the birds it follows a long line of bird illustration where a composite image was made for illustration. I too would like to know more about the "makin-of of this image". I expect that this could still get FP status as a great product promotion image (it might revise a few peoples idea of what a "skoda" is), but I think we should be told whether we're voting for a great bit of action photography or a great bit of air-brush work, before we start :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Apples and Oranges, Tony. The bird-shot pretended to be just that. Here it is pretty obvious that it is a typical car product shot. Compare this to the Michell Merkin model shot that was up for FP on en and commons. --Dschwen (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Without some declaration on the image page, this is masquerading as an action shot. We are talking about commons:FP criteria, I don't think en:wp sets much precedent, a rather different process and criteria, apples and oranges really ;-). Would you care to ask the photographer about the making-of this image, so that the image page complies with FPC criteria and we're not setting a precedent for undisclosed manipulations as being quite ok? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, what are you talking about? I am referring to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg, please do not modify my posts in a confusing way. Yes I planned on writing him another mail. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I wrote en and commons. So forget about en then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll forget about en :-). Sorry, the way it was formatted on my screen I didn' see the commons ref too. See what a difference adding a link makes :-). I will start a general discussion on FPC talk --Tony Wills (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Sure it is, no argument there. I'm very glad we have this image on Commons, it definitely is of great value to many projects. But that is not the point. I don't criticize the quality of the image. But I think with a featured picture important information such as this massive reworking should not be concealed. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you look more carefully at the original uploader's talk page (English) you will understand that in the time that user uploaded these images there was this concern that, is this user really same person as author/copyright holder or no, the user claim that he has send the permission in October 2008, but it seems he never send any!(or did he?) I still think a user with OTRS access should check this.   ■ MMXX^talk  18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, another professional contributor chased away. --Dschwen (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I just checked the OTRS database. There is an email send in october 2008 by someone who identifies himself as Michel de Vries. However, the information in that email is not sufficient to ensure the copyright holder consents with releasing the picture with a free license. A corresponding email was send back by an OTRS member describing the problem, but no response came back so far. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • So the uploader may be a copyright violator and impostor! a German speaker user should contact the real author through his website http://www.micheldevries.de (mail@micheldevries.de) and ask him to verify whether he is the uploader or not?, otherwise unfortunately we should tag all of these images as "no permission".   ■ MMXX^talk  03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll send a mail right away. --Dschwen (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
            • He just replied to permissions-commons and copied me. It couldn't get any clearer than what he wrote. An OTRS member is of course welcome to confirm (god forbid you'd have to take my word for it ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks for taking the iniative, Dschwen. The mail he wrote is absolutely sufficient. I added the template on the image description page and I will restore his pictures on de. Regards, --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Thank you for your effort, Dschwen! :D --Blackfalcon (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks just like any other car ad --Avala (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the point. It is a great example. And by the standards here without any doubt excellent, amazing resolution and sharpness, striking composition, clear subject. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support now that the licensing question is cleared up. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Eventhough the Woman sitting in the car is very blurry, I  Support this image since it's of a really great value, the whole care is sharp with a great composition and reflections.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course! Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Now that the copyright problem is over.   ■ MMXX^talk  19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects