Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Star bavarian Order of Saint Hubert Schatzkammer Residenz Munich.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2014 at 17:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Strange and remarkable jewel, this breast star of the bavarian chivalric Order of Saint Hubert. 19th-century. Enamel, gold, diamonds and emeralds. In the center, the legend of the deer of Saint Hubertus, with the cross between the horns. Schatzkammer, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)- Support Striking and technically sound. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Saffron Blaze --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 08:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support I'm not a fan of the black background here but per Saffron Blaze Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Image great encyclopedic value, unfortunately the clarity is not the best, perhaps because environmental conditions was not taken with tripod, ISO 800 was used to prevent hand tremor, however, this has a cost, sharpness that my view IMHO is not enough for FP. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong for part: no tripod allowed indeed, but ISO 800 was used because of lack of light.--Jebulon (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you need light use more exposition and this will allow a sharp picture. I remember taking pictures in dark places where no tripod allowed, then I realized many shots per section with high ISO and then joined, then reduce the size of the photo and now have a picture sharp, consisting of several photos of a small object . --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose It is technically adequate, but not outstanding. There is a lack of fine detail and crisp edges and the specular highlights are off-white rather than dazzling. I agree with Wilfredo that the high iso (and corresponding NR) reduces the detail captured (I have a similar sensor in my camera). The super-zoom lens used probably isn't best for close-up product photography where filling the frame with the subject could have added another 50% more resolution on the same camera (black surround then added afterwards as needed). -- Colin (talk)
Since some days ago, I think I've to write to you about your comments. I'm not happy that the occasion is because of one of my pictures, but looking at your recent ratio support/oppose, dear Colin, I'm not surprised by your opposition I was waiting of. For sure, you should be very very unhappy these times, and wearing the white knight armor should not be easy every day... Please be sure that like you, I'm able to oppose any picture with any argument, regardless of which (with your way to do, pseudo technical are better, indeed). (Almost ? ) all your recent opinions are negative, you never (or rarely) support, this is discouraging and not constructive. I'm only here since four years and a half, but I've seen many reviewers like you, suffering of the syndrome :"It was better before". Of course it is wrong. My friendly advice: have a little break from this page...--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Jebulon for your concern for my happiness. I agree with you that one could formulate some complaint over any picture and that one should not vote when unhappy. But I disagree that I "never (or rarely) support". I'm sure you appreciate that voting ratios are meaningless. We have numerous voters who only ever support -- are they to be requested to refrain until they can recalibrate their opinions? Since you think I'm out of step, I made an analysis of voting since the beginning of March. The community made 1614 supports and 498 opposes (76% support) yet of the 253 nominations, only 98 were promoted (38.7% promotion). This disconnect between explicit voting and nomination outcome indicates that measuring explicit votes is not an accurate measure of what a voter (or community of voters) actually think about all the nominations. Most voters are going "meh" and not voting, or are disinclined to pile on existing opposition. They are, to some degree, freeloading on the actions of others. You and I have disagreed on a couple of recent nominations but also agreed on many others. Look at User:Colin/ColinFPVoting and User:Colin/JebulonFPVoting for all our votes since the beginning of March. Of the 67 images I opposed, the community promoted 11 of them (16%), though I was rarely alone in my opposition. Of the 18 images you opposed, the community promoted 6 of them (33%). In addition, you are more likely than me to make a neutral/absent vote alongside a clearly negative comment, but of those, the vast majority got promoted. So I ask, do you think my judgement is any more at odds with the consensus result than yours? No, rather we are just a community of mixed opinions and some of us are more bold in expressing them than others. Nostalgia is certainly not the issue: we have plenty poor quality old FPs to disprove that. Mediocrity is the issue and frequent complaint throughout the history of FP. The only defence against promoting mediocrity is to vote oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Mediocrity" is a subjective concept, and statistics mean nothing more than statistics. You counted my
Comment like my "neutral", and "neutral" is a vote, but not "comment"...And what about human factor ?(place of the vote during the process, what to do after six "pro", revenge votes, hidden canvassing, etc...etc...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Neutral" is just explicitly saying "I looked at this photo and can neither persuade myself to support nor oppose" (yes). Leaving a comment without a vote is implicitly doing the same thing (no). And most such comments (by anyone) are negative or give a reason why support is not offered. I don't find the distinct important (I do) as it doesn't directly affect the outcome, and you'll see above I called them "neutral/absent". Your first sentence, which dismisses my entire response, has no argumentative weight whatsoever. You might as well written "Pah!" (but I did not). Of course of opinions are subjective -- even measurable aspects such as sharpness or dynamic range have to be weighed subjectively against the quality of composition, subject, wow, etc. We are not machines. Statistics are of course only as good as the extent to which they measure something real rather than imaginary. I listed all the FP candidates you and I voted/commented on. You can see for yourself that I'm no more likely to vote oppose against community consensus than you are. As I said to Saffron on my talk page, given nearly 2/3 of nominations fail, as one tends towards voting on more nominations, one's ratio would also tend to approximate 2/3 oppose without necessarily being harsher. This is all you are seeing, Jebulon. I suggest you've noticed a couple of recent candidates where I opposed and you supported and have assumed I'm consistently negatively "wrong" and "never (or rarely) support". Rather than base my opinions on a couple of recent candidates that caught my attention, I sought to gather unbiased facts. They speak for themselves. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that as this point, there is no way for a mutual agreement between us in this discussion. No offense, but I suggest we stop here, as I make you spend too much time, and as for me, I've no time enough, neither the relevant nor precise english vocabulary to argue efficiently in a debate which is more and more far from the assessments of the wonderful picture I offer here to the community ... Sorry and thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad to spend no longer on the off-topic issue of my voting patterns. But Jebulon, I don't know why you think a "close-up product shot" taken without tripod at high iso using a 18-250mm super-zoom lens should be immune from criticism when offered as an example of our finest work. The question is whether its good attributes outweigh the bad. This subjective judgement is not easy and why I'm happy it is done by consensus of a group rather than one individual. And you should be happy too, because the consensus is in your favour. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rrrhôôô... I don't think what you say (a "close-up... etc etc immune for criticisme etc etc...finest work). I never said that. Please re-read my first comment, it was off-topic since the beginning (my fault, sorry), and was only about my feeling about your way of voting in general. I admit that I should have written this on your talk page, better than here. Have a nice week-end, dear Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad to spend no longer on the off-topic issue of my voting patterns. But Jebulon, I don't know why you think a "close-up product shot" taken without tripod at high iso using a 18-250mm super-zoom lens should be immune from criticism when offered as an example of our finest work. The question is whether its good attributes outweigh the bad. This subjective judgement is not easy and why I'm happy it is done by consensus of a group rather than one individual. And you should be happy too, because the consensus is in your favour. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that as this point, there is no way for a mutual agreement between us in this discussion. No offense, but I suggest we stop here, as I make you spend too much time, and as for me, I've no time enough, neither the relevant nor precise english vocabulary to argue efficiently in a debate which is more and more far from the assessments of the wonderful picture I offer here to the community
- "Neutral" is just explicitly saying "I looked at this photo and can neither persuade myself to support nor oppose" (yes). Leaving a comment without a vote is implicitly doing the same thing (no). And most such comments (by anyone) are negative or give a reason why support is not offered. I don't find the distinct important (I do) as it doesn't directly affect the outcome, and you'll see above I called them "neutral/absent". Your first sentence, which dismisses my entire response, has no argumentative weight whatsoever. You might as well written "Pah!" (but I did not). Of course of opinions are subjective -- even measurable aspects such as sharpness or dynamic range have to be weighed subjectively against the quality of composition, subject, wow, etc. We are not machines. Statistics are of course only as good as the extent to which they measure something real rather than imaginary. I listed all the FP candidates you and I voted/commented on. You can see for yourself that I'm no more likely to vote oppose against community consensus than you are. As I said to Saffron on my talk page, given nearly 2/3 of nominations fail, as one tends towards voting on more nominations, one's ratio would also tend to approximate 2/3 oppose without necessarily being harsher. This is all you are seeing, Jebulon. I suggest you've noticed a couple of recent candidates where I opposed and you supported and have assumed I'm consistently negatively "wrong" and "never (or rarely) support". Rather than base my opinions on a couple of recent candidates that caught my attention, I sought to gather unbiased facts. They speak for themselves. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Mediocrity" is a subjective concept, and statistics mean nothing more than statistics. You counted my
- Thanks Jebulon for your concern for my happiness. I agree with you that one could formulate some complaint over any picture and that one should not vote when unhappy. But I disagree that I "never (or rarely) support". I'm sure you appreciate that voting ratios are meaningless. We have numerous voters who only ever support -- are they to be requested to refrain until they can recalibrate their opinions? Since you think I'm out of step, I made an analysis of voting since the beginning of March. The community made 1614 supports and 498 opposes (76% support) yet of the 253 nominations, only 98 were promoted (38.7% promotion). This disconnect between explicit voting and nomination outcome indicates that measuring explicit votes is not an accurate measure of what a voter (or community of voters) actually think about all the nominations. Most voters are going "meh" and not voting, or are disinclined to pile on existing opposition. They are, to some degree, freeloading on the actions of others. You and I have disagreed on a couple of recent nominations but also agreed on many others. Look at User:Colin/ColinFPVoting and User:Colin/JebulonFPVoting for all our votes since the beginning of March. Of the 67 images I opposed, the community promoted 11 of them (16%), though I was rarely alone in my opposition. Of the 18 images you opposed, the community promoted 6 of them (33%). In addition, you are more likely than me to make a neutral/absent vote alongside a clearly negative comment, but of those, the vast majority got promoted. So I ask, do you think my judgement is any more at odds with the consensus result than yours? No, rather we are just a community of mixed opinions and some of us are more bold in expressing them than others. Nostalgia is certainly not the issue: we have plenty poor quality old FPs to disprove that. Mediocrity is the issue and frequent complaint throughout the history of FP. The only defence against promoting mediocrity is to vote oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral I am not convinced either by the sharpness, but good work overall and nice subject. Poco2 15:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)- Support --JLPC (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
