Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strawberries in market.jpg

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

File:Strawberries in market.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 20:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Color balanced image uploaded. Sting (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- per above, and I don't want the rumpled berries (see notes) to be in FP. I would suggest you to carefully retake the image: find appropriate light conditions, use a tripod and thoroughly select the best big clean strawberries for the picture. Try to spray some water drops on them... It's easy, just found the new strawberry and make the photo again. --Ximeg (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The rumpled berries were the first thing I noticed. The berries also look a bit small to me as Ximeg mentioned. I'd like to see a new closer shot, or one using bigger berries, emphasizing plumpness and possibly uncluding some water droplets as suggested above. INeverCry 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Then the picture would be called "perfect strawberries in studio" never to be seen in real life... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I buy strawberries at the supermarket, I avoid rumpled ones and small ones, and I've never found it hard to do so. The strawberries don't have to be perfect, but undamaged fruit isn't too much to ask. Would we want a pic of bruised bananas or apples with wormholes for an FP? I just want a shot of strawberries that's a bit more appealing to the eyes - and appetite. ;) INeverCry 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing in life comes as conceived in a Platonic ideal... You are free to oppose on whatever grounds, but some things like "they look small" invites a challenge, for there is no object that gives scale here. The small berries could be bigger than what you have seen in real life... This is a picture of berries in a market, not packaged #[[1]]... as seen in real life. If reality is not good enough for you, then there really is not much to say... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you may find the wabi-sabi philosophy enlightening... [[2]]... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There may be a cultural thing here too. In the UK, our strawberries come in little protective punnets and are expected to be large, completely red and perfect in shape and condition. Your second picture explains everything: this is a huge pile of loose strawberries at a market. But by cropping down to just the strawberries, the viewer loses the context (despite the filename), and expects to be seeing a still life. And the qualities of a still life are perfect subject, carefully arranged, artfully lit, controled DoF, etc. The second picture has much higher educational value for me because I can see how strawberries are sold in a market in Mexico. Whereas the above image just shows me some strawberries, which could be anywhere, in less than pristine condition. Since these aren't an unusual fruit, an image of "just strawberries" would have to be fantastic to make anyone go wow. I'd love to see more of the market stall and owner. Perhaps a shot of them shovelling the strawberries into a paper bag? Colin (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice, but see notes --Stas1995 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well dear critics, with all due respect to your opinion, I agree with you that on the superficial level it is important to portray "picture perfect strawberries." But I am not interested in presenting a picture of strawberries to end up in a brochure, but to portray strawberries as they really are in most parts of the world, not on some supermarkets for privileged people. Picture perfect strawberries are really a distortion of reality which is fine for certain ends (and believe me, the flavor ain´t the same!!!). I´d rather see perfectly imperfect strawberries... Photography nowadays can be used to portray lies (learn about the discussion about photoshop, models, results, etc.) As a language, photography can transmit an honest message or a cooked message... I prefer the honest one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be quite happy with imperfect strawberries in a context where that make sense. But ultimately, the pictures on Commons are meant to be used, not just make someone happy with their Flickr portfolio and match their values. Who would choose to use this picture of imperfect strawberries? Give me some context (market, owner, buyer, kitchen worktop, meal) and their imperfection can be an asset. Colin (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you are asking is like trying to prove a negative. But think of how many times you have bought a product and what comes out never looks like it does in the picture. In restaurants, for example, the food served never looks like the picture in the menu. And imperfect photographs can be used anyway in many contexts anyway, the potential users are the same that you mention. The fact that these strawberries do not conform to the ideal in someone´s view do no make the image unusable. Some may prefer this approach due to its honesty. After all, I hold the view of perfect imperfection as an expression of my values, and that view is as legitimate as the expectation of perfection of others (that never really is). --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment --I agree with the author that this isn't a studio shot and the filename doesn't leave any doubt about it. Because of that we don't have here perfect and beautiful strawberries but a photograph picturing a reality we can find all around the world, even sometimes in the most sterilized supermarkets. Just to not miss the point of this picture. Sting (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Creating controversy was not my intention, but I do find it interesting that a discussion and oppose votes arise from the lack of superficial/artificial quality and failure to meet expectations of ideals of an object, that is, how it should look like, leaving aside one of the manners that the object emerges in reality. It is an ironic posture to disqualify an image of a real subject based on commercially induced visual expectations. Usefulness of an image depends on many variables, some contradictory. A rumpled strawberry, for example, far from being only a defect, could illustrate the aging process of a fruit. But anyway, each head is a universe... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is certainly worth challenging these ideas, and on a project free from commercial realities of a stock image site or the vanities of a photographer's online profile. But this isn't QI or VI. A picture of a town centre on an overcast day, or cut flowers just past their best, maybe reality but nobody goes wow. QI has plenty reality pictures. Colin (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn´t matter how one goes, some like stock-like images, others like natural looking images, by pleasing one, one displeases the other. A featurable picture could be either type of photography, for there are no universal values on what constitutes an "appropriate" image, either here or elsewhere. Populations may have preferences, but even majority opionions do not constitute a universal truth. Since this is a place where images are donated, I donate what I have, the way I have it, the way I see it. Like Rumsfeld once said very wisely (and very misunderstood), you go to war with the army you have. I donate the pictures I have. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Strawberries_in_market.jpg&oldid=82920084"