Very Vivid Flower
Photograph taken by Matthew Trevithick (Myself). Photo of a very red flower. If anyone knows what the flower may be called, would you please say. I'm no good with flowers.
- Nominate and support. - Koolgiy 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unexceptional image (albeit attractive enough), and unacceptable noise. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose... err. well, where do I start? The photo isn't actually in an article (which is a requirement), contains a very prominent watermark (which, while not against policy, is definitely frowned upon), it is not actually very sharp at all and is very noisy. The composition could also be improved by cropping the right side of the frame as does not contribute to the image but this would not really redeem it, unfortunately. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore images need to have encylopedic value. This one just doesn't - particularly as you are not even sure what sort of flower it actually is. Sorry.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the watermark is against policy. See
Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images.
howch
e
ng {
chat} 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah I stand corrected. I was refering to FPC policy not specifically prohibiting watermarks, but its good to see that Wiki takes a stand on it, too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the watermark is against policy. See
Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images.
howch
e
ng {
chat} 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You have a good point. I'll take a picture, relevant to an article. And I won't put a watermark on if i'm submitting a Featured Image. Is there noise?
Koolgiy 22:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is quite a lot of noise (like film grain, a speckled texture most visible in the background). And I wouldn't put a watermark on any image you put on wikipedia.. It detracts from the photo and since you're releasing it to the public domain, anyone can do whatever they like with it (including removing the watermark if neccessary), so trying to retain attribution is a bit pointless. :). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you view it in full, its actually a very sharp picture. And ya, but I don't want people stealing images by me, so I put the watermark on. It's happened before, and that's why I have started.
Koolgiy 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hang on - you don't want people "stealing" your images, yet you've released them into the public domain? Do you understand the problem with what you've just said... If you don't want people "stealing" you're pictures, don't release them under a free license. If you don't want people using them without attribution, or claiming them as their own, use a cc-by or similar license. If you still insist on watermarking all your images, then please don't upload them to Wikipedia - we don't want them.
ed g2s •
talk 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's inaccurate and, frankly, quite rude. Wikipedia will gladly take watermarked images. In almost all cases the watermark can be removed if need be. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hang on - you don't want people "stealing" your images, yet you've released them into the public domain? Do you understand the problem with what you've just said... If you don't want people "stealing" you're pictures, don't release them under a free license. If you don't want people using them without attribution, or claiming them as their own, use a cc-by or similar license. If you still insist on watermarking all your images, then please don't upload them to Wikipedia - we don't want them.
ed g2s •
talk 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Diliff has said it all - Adrian Pingstone 23:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think I'll take this off before people start to make me feel like I suck. Koolgiy 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- How about this instead: Please only provide contructive comments below. Then when the nom runs out it will be closed. Good? - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You can see exiting featured pics for flowers at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible#Plants and Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible#Plants_2. Now that this came up I am actually studying them myself as I could use some work with my flower photography (see my attempt: Image:Starflower.jpg, which has blown highlights). - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's a carnation - doniv 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's
dianthus. I've grown dianthus and carnations several times, and this is unequivocally dianthus. --
Pharaoh Hound
(talk) 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's no carnation. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's
dianthus. I've grown dianthus and carnations several times, and this is unequivocally dianthus. --
Pharaoh Hound
(talk) 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, way too noisy, waterdrop mark clearly visible -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How about now. Now that the watermark is gone. Thanks howcheng. Koolgiy 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think Diliff has said it all. -- Tewy 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Flower pictures have to be truly exceptional. Although the flower itself is well-displayed, the big yellow petals in the foreground and the background of the fence/gate are distracting. Plus, as has been stated before, it needs to be put in an article. howch e ng { chat} 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Definitely too noisy. -- S0uj1r0 10:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ok then. So your all for nos then. I will take a better, sharper, and more high resolution picture of a flower or something, relevant to an article on Wikipedia. Koolgiy 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)