Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bottrop (DE), Tetraeder -- 2022 -- 0402.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2024 at 19:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I'm not sure if it also could fit into the FP gallery "Sculptures", as the Tetrahedron is somehow both – one and a tower. -- A. Öztas 19:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: This is a renomination. -- A. Öztas 11:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Support -- A. Öztas 19:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan Kekek and Daniel Case here. And it should be mentioned somewhere that it is the third nomination of this structure after this one and that one -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
,_Tetraeder_--_2022_--_0402.jpg){kind=link}
- Just to be complete at this point: One nomination did not reach the necessary total number of votes and the other was a different version of this picture, whose nomination I had withdrawn after less than a day. Without going any further into the discussion here, I should have included the reference above (as I subsequently did) when I nominated it. I didn't have in mind at the time that the photo had already been here before. -- A. Öztas 11:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is no strict rule about it but it is generally the case that we don't renominate a picture that has failed unless significant improvements have been made to it since the previous nomination. My support still stands in this case, but it isn't normally something we would do. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, see this case for example, a few days ago -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't have in mind that the structure had already been nominated twice? It's surprising. Anyway, too dark in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- The brief nomination that I withdrew after less than a day and the subsequent one felt like a single attempt to me and this was over a year ago – and quite a lot has happened since then. So yes, it simply slipped my mind. There's no reason to be surprised by that. It was pointed out, the reference was added, and that should suffice. As for the image, I understand that it might indeed appear a bit too dark. Whilst it can always change, at the moment it's just right for me, whether it's enough for an excellence rating or not. I appreciate your perspective and the time you've taken to review it. -- A. Öztas 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome to discuss here. "Brief nomination" but still three oppose, one question and one comment during this short time. Thus quite a logical withdrawal, in my opinion. We can of course AGF, but reciprocally, we, reviewers, remember that the two similar nominations failed not so long ago, for assumed fair reasons. As Ikan Kekek rightly said in a similar case "Not voting also counts as a lack of interest". Usually, it is obvious to the nominators that a photo has already been nominated, because they need to add "/2" at the end of the file name to create a new FPC, but here the file page has been renamed twice recently. With still no metadata. Of course, since the voters are not always the same at FPC every month, it can happen that a picture which failed the first time is finally promoted by insisting. But you should also understand, as you wrote after the first nomination "I will nominate the original as FP with the reasonable assumption that it will be rejected anyway", that the picture will struggle to pass, even though several of us reiterate their efforts to evaluate again. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss about what? After the first answer from you and me, everything was already said, or am I wrong? Of course, we are welcome to deepen the discussion, precisely because it is a topic that affects many aspects of the FP nomination processes and often offers room for different perspectives. In this context, I would like to address a few points that touch on both the past of previous nominations and the general guidelines for repeat submissions. As I mentioned, the first nomination was over a year ago. This distance in the time frame plays a role in my opinion, as it makes it clear that I did not submit the nomination of the structure out of a constant repetition so that it would, as you wrote, "finally be promoted by insisting". The motivation lies more in the fact that I continued to reflect on the image over time and adapted my own view of it. As a photographer, I often experience such processes; a certain development of my own view of the image. Photography, after all, is a medium through which we capture not just what we see, but what we feel at a given moment. And as those feelings evolve, so too can our interpretations of our own work. This growth is natural and, I believe, valuable to the community's understanding of a work as it evolves through the eyes of its creator. At the same time, I understand that for reviewers like you and others who regularly participate in the discussions, there is a certain habit and reminder value when similar or identical images are up for discussion again. What this has to do with AGF here is beyond me. I'm not as familiar with the practice in this area, I'm only on my fourth photo here. I see your references to a previous nomination as a helpful addition and not a criticism per se. The process of weighing up between a possible repetition and the search for new qualities in an image is essential and is shown in the current case by the different feedback and views. I would also like to note that my decision to quickly withdraw the previous nomination should not be understood as an endorsement of a "logical withdrawal". There were several factors at the time, including personal considerations, that led me to withdraw the nomination. It is true that this first nomination was - albeit briefly - on the table and led to reactions, but the circumstances were more complex than they appear at first glance. In my opinion, such a withdrawal should not be seen as a weakening factor for the quality of the picture itself, but as part of the individual process that each artist has to deal with. Furthermore, I would suggest having a broader discussion about the weighting of nominations that have already failed. Of course, there is no doubt that a clear majority should decide the relevance and quality of an image, but there may be cases where an image changes its relevance and quality over time. This could be due to technical improvements, a change in the community's perspective or simply time showing the work in a new light. Such an approach may well make sense for some FPC nominations, particularly for those images that have failed in the past but could potentially find new appreciation. After all, everything and nothing is set in stone here. With regard to the question about the brightness of the image, I agree that this is a subjective judgement and certainly open to discussion. The incidence of light and the colour scheme reflect the mood that I wanted to capture when taking the photograph and are not just technical parameters for me, but part of the aesthetic that I want to convey. Of course, the comment that the image may be perceived as too dark is justified and a question of personal taste - however, it is precisely this difference between subjective perception and objective quality that often leads to divergent assessments. Light plays a powerful role in shaping the emotional resonance of an image, influencing how viewers perceive and connect with it on a deeper level. By intentionally choosing a darker, more subdued lighting, I aimed to create an atmosphere that goes beyond a straightforward representation of the structure itself. This darkness, though perhaps unconventional, allows subtle textures and contrasts to emerge, lending the image a mysterious quality that invites viewers to look closer and consider the piece in a contemplative way. The interplay between shadows and faint highlights, in my view, captures a sense of introspection and draws attention to the sculptural lines of the structure. While brighter lighting may provide more clarity or detail, this more moody approach aligns with the feeling I experienced when taking the photograph, reflecting a quieter, almost meditative atmosphere. Shadows add depth and a sense of timelessness to the scene, suggesting that the image captures not just a single moment but a feeling that could exist outside of time. This play of light and shadow is a deliberate choice, one intended to evoke curiosity and to invite viewers into the scene, allowing them to experience the piece not merely as an architectural object but as a structure with an almost enigmatic presence. At least that's how I feel about this one. In the end, I understand that every image will resonate differently with each person who views it, and I fully respect the diverse perspectives within this community. The beauty of these discussions lies in their ability to reveal new interpretations and insights, both for the artist and for those who critique the work. I look forward to read more of your perspectives in other discussions as well, as these exchanges are invaluable not only for our individual growth but also for enriching the shared vision of what we seek to highlight here. -- A. Öztas 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invaluable also is novelty :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss about what? After the first answer from you and me, everything was already said, or am I wrong? Of course, we are welcome to deepen the discussion, precisely because it is a topic that affects many aspects of the FP nomination processes and often offers room for different perspectives. In this context, I would like to address a few points that touch on both the past of previous nominations and the general guidelines for repeat submissions. As I mentioned, the first nomination was over a year ago. This distance in the time frame plays a role in my opinion, as it makes it clear that I did not submit the nomination of the structure out of a constant repetition so that it would, as you wrote, "finally be promoted by insisting". The motivation lies more in the fact that I continued to reflect on the image over time and adapted my own view of it. As a photographer, I often experience such processes; a certain development of my own view of the image. Photography, after all, is a medium through which we capture not just what we see, but what we feel at a given moment. And as those feelings evolve, so too can our interpretations of our own work. This growth is natural and, I believe, valuable to the community's understanding of a work as it evolves through the eyes of its creator. At the same time, I understand that for reviewers like you and others who regularly participate in the discussions, there is a certain habit and reminder value when similar or identical images are up for discussion again. What this has to do with AGF here is beyond me. I'm not as familiar with the practice in this area, I'm only on my fourth photo here. I see your references to a previous nomination as a helpful addition and not a criticism per se. The process of weighing up between a possible repetition and the search for new qualities in an image is essential and is shown in the current case by the different feedback and views. I would also like to note that my decision to quickly withdraw the previous nomination should not be understood as an endorsement of a "logical withdrawal". There were several factors at the time, including personal considerations, that led me to withdraw the nomination. It is true that this first nomination was - albeit briefly - on the table and led to reactions, but the circumstances were more complex than they appear at first glance. In my opinion, such a withdrawal should not be seen as a weakening factor for the quality of the picture itself, but as part of the individual process that each artist has to deal with. Furthermore, I would suggest having a broader discussion about the weighting of nominations that have already failed. Of course, there is no doubt that a clear majority should decide the relevance and quality of an image, but there may be cases where an image changes its relevance and quality over time. This could be due to technical improvements, a change in the community's perspective or simply time showing the work in a new light. Such an approach may well make sense for some FPC nominations, particularly for those images that have failed in the past but could potentially find new appreciation. After all, everything and nothing is set in stone here. With regard to the question about the brightness of the image, I agree that this is a subjective judgement and certainly open to discussion. The incidence of light and the colour scheme reflect the mood that I wanted to capture when taking the photograph and are not just technical parameters for me, but part of the aesthetic that I want to convey. Of course, the comment that the image may be perceived as too dark is justified and a question of personal taste - however, it is precisely this difference between subjective perception and objective quality that often leads to divergent assessments. Light plays a powerful role in shaping the emotional resonance of an image, influencing how viewers perceive and connect with it on a deeper level. By intentionally choosing a darker, more subdued lighting, I aimed to create an atmosphere that goes beyond a straightforward representation of the structure itself. This darkness, though perhaps unconventional, allows subtle textures and contrasts to emerge, lending the image a mysterious quality that invites viewers to look closer and consider the piece in a contemplative way. The interplay between shadows and faint highlights, in my view, captures a sense of introspection and draws attention to the sculptural lines of the structure. While brighter lighting may provide more clarity or detail, this more moody approach aligns with the feeling I experienced when taking the photograph, reflecting a quieter, almost meditative atmosphere. Shadows add depth and a sense of timelessness to the scene, suggesting that the image captures not just a single moment but a feeling that could exist outside of time. This play of light and shadow is a deliberate choice, one intended to evoke curiosity and to invite viewers into the scene, allowing them to experience the piece not merely as an architectural object but as a structure with an almost enigmatic presence. At least that's how I feel about this one. In the end, I understand that every image will resonate differently with each person who views it, and I fully respect the diverse perspectives within this community. The beauty of these discussions lies in their ability to reveal new interpretations and insights, both for the artist and for those who critique the work. I look forward to read more of your perspectives in other discussions as well, as these exchanges are invaluable not only for our individual growth but also for enriching the shared vision of what we seek to highlight here. -- A. Öztas 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome to discuss here. "Brief nomination" but still three oppose, one question and one comment during this short time. Thus quite a logical withdrawal, in my opinion. We can of course AGF, but reciprocally, we, reviewers, remember that the two similar nominations failed not so long ago, for assumed fair reasons. As Ikan Kekek rightly said in a similar case "Not voting also counts as a lack of interest". Usually, it is obvious to the nominators that a photo has already been nominated, because they need to add "/2" at the end of the file name to create a new FPC, but here the file page has been renamed twice recently. With still no metadata. Of course, since the voters are not always the same at FPC every month, it can happen that a picture which failed the first time is finally promoted by insisting. But you should also understand, as you wrote after the first nomination "I will nominate the original as FP with the reasonable assumption that it will be rejected anyway", that the picture will struggle to pass, even though several of us reiterate their efforts to evaluate again. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- The brief nomination that I withdrew after less than a day and the subsequent one felt like a single attempt to me and this was over a year ago – and quite a lot has happened since then. So yes, it simply slipped my mind. There's no reason to be surprised by that. It was pointed out, the reference was added, and that should suffice. As for the image, I understand that it might indeed appear a bit too dark. Whilst it can always change, at the moment it's just right for me, whether it's enough for an excellence rating or not. I appreciate your perspective and the time you've taken to review it. -- A. Öztas 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is no strict rule about it but it is generally the case that we don't renominate a picture that has failed unless significant improvements have been made to it since the previous nomination. My support still stands in this case, but it isn't normally something we would do. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be complete at this point: One nomination did not reach the necessary total number of votes and the other was a different version of this picture, whose nomination I had withdrawn after less than a day. Without going any further into the discussion here, I should have included the reference above (as I subsequently did) when I nominated it. I didn't have in mind at the time that the photo had already been here before. -- A. Öztas 11:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)