Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama)

Photomontage edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 16:37:51 (UTC)

Original - Photomontage made by compositing 16 different photos.

Reason: A photomontage made by compositing 16 freely licensed images, IMO this is one of the best photomontages available and have very high value. (see Photomontages in Commons)
Although according to FP criterion #8, digital manipulation is discouraged, but this is a fictional art work and fits very well in artworks category, this work should not be mistaken with a real landscape and criterion #8 doesn't makes it's EV any less.
Articles in which this image appears: Photomontage, Photo manipulation, Image editing, Photoshop contest
FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, Photographic techniques
Creator: Mmxx

Alternative version, replaced File:Nasa blue marble.jpg with the Blue Marble

Support as nominator -- ■ MMXX ^talk 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Is featured prominently in article and seems integrated with text (and is a good illustration of the concept). In terms of photomontage art, I don't know enough to judge it. Not really my sort of thing...although I liked this one a bit better than the others on the page. Do think these sort of detailed images do better as a painting to stand in front of, rather than on computer. Certainly a substantial work went into the creation (kudos). I'm supporting because we need one photo like this in the FP grab bag and the fellow did so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:14, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
- switching to neutral. I totally heart that we should have one of these images and the work in making it and love the Earth rising and all. Just feel like this thing is too unrealistic.TCO (reviews needed) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a photomontage, a photoshopped work, it's meant to be unrealistic! that's why it have high EV and it's useful for photo manipulation articles... ■ MMXX ^talk 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I heard that. And please don't jump through hoops for my vote. Follow your artistic instincts and let the chips fall as they do. My only point is...sure it is unrealistic...but I just think to give the reader credit via some subtlety. Not obonk him over the head with "it is wrong". I think it's even more powerful artistically if it looks more real. to the exten that this succeeds as art it is because it sorta looks real...but then wrong also. That is cool and disturbing. I'm actually basically an oppose (I like to force myself to vote one way or the other)...but am just doing neutral since you are such a nice guy, busted your ASS to make this thing, and I don't want to discourage you!TCO (reviews needed) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If I was going to support a photomontage for being a photomontage, I'd want it to look real. This one just doesn't- even though, obviously, we know that this has come from a number of different photos, it isn't believable. I don't feel like I'm looking at some strange fantastic landscape, I feel I am looking at a photoshop. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is easy to remove some parts and add some other images to make it look more real, although it might have higher value as a photomontage, but IMO that would not be useful for Wikipedia articles, this image is only useful in image editing related articles, like photoshop contest, I believe viewer should be able to understand that this is a fictional and manipulated work in one sight. I could only add the mountains, the boat and maybe Mont Saint-Michel and make it more close to a real landscape but then it had less EV in image editing related articles, but now, viewer knows that this is a fictional work in first sight by seeing things somewhere that they don't belong to, like the Earth ■ MMXX ^talk 03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely, a photomontage is a "better" photomontage if it looks real? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMO not always, it depends what are your goals and why are you making it, do you want to make a photomontage to illustrate image editing, photoshopping...? or do you want to deceive the viewer (like this)? do you want to make a fictional art work? or does it have to look real and follow some ethical and legal codes? yet, I do agree that fictional art works are better if they look real as much as possible, but being unbelievable is not a bad thing for fictional works. ■ MMXX ^talk 12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm also kind of on J Milburn's side. I'm not saying I could do any better, but there are heaps of giveaways that this is photoshopped, like different resolution of individual photos. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to even the image as much as possible, please let me know where do you think should be fixed, thank you. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that something we can see by the eye? Or some techie photo thing you see in photoshop? I think we need one weird futuristic image to balance out all the birds and mushrooms and tablefruit.TCO (reviews needed) 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I uploaded a new version, please let me know what do you feel when you look at it, is focus on different objects similar with it's surrounding area? ■ MMXX ^talk 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The castle beside the Sydney opera house seems to be much sharper than everything else in the picture. Unfortunately, I'll be without internet for the next week or so, so I guess it doesn't really pay to change this just for me... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        How is it now? ■ MMXX ^talk 21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, OK, you've got my support now. Good stuff. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added annotations to the file linking to original images, they make the work more understandable. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problems I raised in the PPR last year appear to be fixed and I can't spot any (substantial) new ones. I agree that this should be obviously fake, thus making it clear that the image was shooped. MER-C 13:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I reviewed the image at PPR (link) last year. It has definitely improved, but I'm still not sure about it. I feel like I've looked at it too much to really be able to judge it well anymore. I will say I don't like the Earth image used, it's the element that looks most unreal to me. Something about the colors. Jujutacular ^talk 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, the Earth is the most odd thing in the image, I tried it without the Earth too, but IMO somehow it makes the work more interesting, especially that it seems the person on the boat is looking at the earthrise when looking at the image, I wish people could experience similar amazement feeling that Frank Borman felt when they were taking a picture of earthrise, I'll try to change the Earth with another image with more real colors. ■ MMXX ^talk 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I love the Earth. Some of the other stuff (statue of Liberty) seems gimmicky. But the planetrise is cool.TCO (reviews needed) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't do anything about the Statue of Liberty other than replacing it by something else, the Statue of Liberty is needed here and I don't think that's a good idea to change or remove it. I've made another version, using the Blue Marble which is closer to real colors. ■ MMXX ^talk 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt Much better with the Earth image replaced, imo. I'm liking it. Jujutacular ^talk 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit I think it should be an obvious photomontage, because that shows the reader, in a picture, what a photomontage is (pictures montaged together). What I find great is the reflections of the objects in the water. The other "earth" is far more aesthetically pleasing. And it's always interesting to have something other than a regular photograph-such as an animation, illustration, or this-on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think what's wrong with it is that it only illustrates the technique, but not the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art). Thus EV is not sufficient IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please explain more about your comment? and your meaning of the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art)? do you prefer a side-by-side work like this or this one as FP?
  IMO to a normal viewer who doesn't have any knowledge of working with image editing programs, this photomontage is an art, and it does illustrate it's purpose to them very well, the purpose of showing what can be done in image editing programs, showing to what extent and how, one can manipulate the images and the concept of photomontage.
  Please let me know what kind of manipulated/photoshopped art work will get your support for FP, thank you. ■ MMXX ^talk 15:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that photomontage is a technique which is used for a purpose. This image is not demonstrating any purpose, so it has lower EV than any which would. Photomontages can have different purposes, for instance to demonstrate how a proposed building would look like in the cityscape (simulation: example, another example and another example), to illustrate something otherwise not visible (reconstruction), or simply for art. --Elekhh (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, in your opinion this work doesn't simulate anything? for example a fictional landscape in Bavaria? or it is not an art?! ■ MMXX ^talk 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggested attribution violates the terms of the CC licenses for the other photos, which require attribution. A reuser needs to credit all authors, not just MMXX. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the attribution method, now, the suggested attribution requires users to link to the original source where name of other authors can be found.
  I must add that I don't see any specific terms in CC BY-SA 3.0 license to force users of derivative works to list all the author(s) of the works which the main work is based on them, a work may be derivative work of many other works, and asking users to list and attribute all the authors would be a very hard restriction. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The license says: "If You Distribute ... any Adaptations or Collections, You must ... provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author ... (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; ... and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." I still don't think your suggested attribution is sufficient - I'd just remove it entirely rather than having something inconsistent with the license for others' works. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you think it is acceptable now? or should I remove the attribution suggestion? by the way, I'm glad that this FPC and my photomontage has attracted your attention, I understand that you rarely contribute to FPC thank you for your comments. ■ MMXX ^talk 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Haha well I used to vote a lot more. Now I'm a constant lurker but vote only if I think a nom is going to go the wrong way. Most things get resolved correctly (IMO at least) without me. :) As I wrote above (in a slightly later edit, so maybe you missed it), I don't think a link to the source page is sufficient attribution. (There is something in the edit box for text contributions that says a link is enough, but as far as I can tell there's no such click-through agreement when you upload.) Since the photographers have specified attribution share-alike they must be attributed by name too. You can either put the standard license and let reusers figure that out at their own peril, or you can put a suggested credit that lists them - but your current suggested credit is still not compliant with the license because it does not name the photographers as required (like I pasted above). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have removed the suggested attribution for now, until I could think of a better way. ■ MMXX ^talk 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg to demonstrate distance of objects and their reflections.

Comment The reflection of the plane is too sharp and unrippled. Otherwise, I like the improvements since it last came to commons. I think the aim of an educational photomontage should be to show an unnatural arrangement of objects in as realistic manner as possible, so that the reader is both immediately aware of the hoax, but also convinced of its realism. --99of9 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment, I've fixed the reflections (alt). ■ MMXX ^talk 06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's better. The plane reflection is also in the wrong place (too far down the image) compared to the reflections of the clouds. --99of9 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The plane seems to be in the correct distance and location, please see this demo, notice the different between reflections of clouds and the Statue of Liberty and compare it to the plane, because the clouds are in longer distance (depth) and plane is actually between the Statue of Liberty and clouds... what do you think? ■ MMXX ^talk 11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To me the planes reflection looks like it's only just behind the statue, but a long way in front of the clouds, which doesn't match my guess based on it's visual size. But I admit it's not far off, and I haven't done any calculations to test my estimation. --99of9 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the concept of having a well-executed scene that is obviously shopped. I notice some minor flaws in the cutouts (boat against the water, mountains against the planet), but these are relatively minor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the boat in alt version. ■ MMXX ^talk 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support And that goes to either version, because this is an excellent example of the photomontage produced by photo-editing. I don't think the purpose was ever to portray the photomontage as realistic, but rather to show the capabilities of photo-editing. The various pictures fit very well, it's a high quality picture overall. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I meant to say Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]