Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Floating on water.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Floating on water[edit]

Floating on water

I spotted this image while browsing trough Commons and it just amazed me. I find it artistic and striking. I uploaded it to the Sepia tone article and I think it really adds a lot to it showing that a -not so rare scenario- can look beautifull with the correct editing and such. It was uploaded by User: Test-tools in commons.

  • Nominate and support.Nnfolz 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is the nudity really necessary to illustrate sepia? --128.32.185.154 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good photo Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There are several issues with the image that stop me from supporting, one is the fact that it's slighly blurry at full size which can be easily fixed by downsampling which would probably be acceptable considering the original image size, the second is jpeg artifacting most notably on the upper left quadrant of the image. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't feel that this image does a particularly good job of illustrating sepia tone. It could very well have been taken on color film and left untouched, given that those are fairly easily reproducible skin tones and lighting conditions. In fact, the only real visual cue (to me) that it's sepia tone is that the "black" background has a brown tint to it. I think the image would be better suited to a page like diffraction. --Marumari 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nnfolz - with regards to your question, I would use a caption like "Water defracts sunlight shining on a sunbathing woman". I would check on the diffraction talk page, though; I am not a physicist. That said, I can't say whether or not I would support it in that usage, either. --Marumari 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo, toplessness is even better than diffraction. --Marumari 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is already in the toplessness article as well.Nnfolz 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per >BRIAN--Vircabutar 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. As Brian mentioned, it could be useful to the toplessness article, but I don't think it's FP material, primarily because of the composition. -- moondigger 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Brian. Schizmatic 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral although I do I like the floatation devices. Joe I 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are rather nice to have - I've always enjoyed my floatation devices.  :) --Marumari 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some of you are really sick. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value to this picture, and I think the only reason some of you would support it is because of the fact that the woman is naked. Just because Wikipedia is not censored, we do not have to make it pornographic encyclopedia. Cab02 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from the unprovoked hostility and personal attacks in your comment, I'm guessing that the only reason you're opposing the image is because it's a woman naked. Now, that's just ridiculous. Please try reading and grasping Art (although, there is a "pornographic" image at the top of that page too, so you may not be able to handle the subject). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 05:48
      • Hear, hear. Count me as a Weak Oppose, but only because of poor image quality. This is not pornography, just a pair of impersonal (as the head is missing) flotation devices (@Marumari's comment - Tee hee hee!). This is not in any way sick, is not damaging to minors (almost every child has seen an ordinary pair of these before, and this photo is not at all sexually suggestive), and Wikipedia is not censored, expecially for something as non-provocative as this. If the subject was not wearing anything to cover the lower genital area, then I would agree that it was slightly pornographic, but this is hardly offensive. Like Brian so excellently said - try to grasp art before you oppose on the grounds of jugs. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, so what's so good about this picture again? - Cribananda 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a clearly artificial sepia effect is a terrible way to illustrate sepia tone. For pretty much any other use, the cut-off head ruins the composition. Also, I'm not really fond of the way the subject is topless, but not bottomless - it's like the image is hedging its bets between art and pornography. Can't really see what this image has to do with an encyclopaedia. Stevage 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the head is cut-off is one of the things i like. The woman has no identity that way. It could be anyone anywhere.Nnfolz 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's an artsy nude study photograph, yes (not pornography in any definition of the word as I see), but as said, it doesn't really illustrate the article well. --Janke | Talk 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it works for the toplessness article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 05:52
      • I don't agree that it is a great picture to illustrate toplessness either (the first pic in the article does a much better job). You cannot even tell where the woman is (in a pool or a lake or a bathtub). The term typically refers to toplessness in public. Somebody on her way to the shower would be a bad example to illustrate toplessness. - Cribananda 05:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I find the cropping to be conceptually undesirable, as it raises the question of why the image deliberately cuts off the woman's head. Unless such a decision was made as a social commentary on the objectification of the female nude, I find this depiction to be a devaluation of the subject. In plain language, I find the cropping places this image in a strange half porn, half art category, and it makes me uncomfortable. The cropping seems to have been done as if the subject was nothing more than some Barbie doll. If the woman's head were included--even if we could not clearly see the face--I would reconsider. Aesthetically, I have no significant objections. But on a conceptual level, I think there are real issues regarding the appropriateness of granting FP status to an image that can be interpreted as an objectification of women --Wickerprints 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As somebody who does erotic/BDSM photography from time to time, my guess as to the reason why the woman's head is cut off is that the artist wasn't able to obtain a model release form. If I were Wikipedia, I would be loathe to publish this image as a FP *with* her head, but *without* a model release form. --Marumari 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's unlikely that the photographer would have a photo session with a model and not have a signed model release form. Seems more likely the decision to keep her head out of the frame was an artistic one, though a misguided one in my opinion. Edward Weston's nudes often were shot in such a way that the model's face was not visible, but his incredible eye for composition never resulted in anything as garish as to simply lop off the head at the neck with the edge of the frame, as this one does. (Nor did he ruin the concept of a 'nude' by having his models wear bikini bottoms, but that's another issue.) That's not to say he never had parts of a model's body outside of the frame; he did that often, treating the body like a landscape photographer treats a nature scene. If the model's head was outside the frame it was because the photo was a study of a particular contour of her body. Often the model's head was in the frame, but hidden artfully, as in my favorite Weston nude, seen here: [1]. Sorry, I've veered off on a tangent. The point is that I don't think this particular photo is anything noteworthy, whether the photographer had a model release or not. -- moondigger 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason why I say is that there's no model release form is that I followed it back to the original source, and it said that it's a picture of young women skinny dipping in the Gulf of Mexico. It *could* be a photoshoot, but it could just be someone taking pictures at a nude beach. Oh, and the page says there's no model release available. Either way, I think we can both agree that this image isn't FPC material. --Marumari 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I see. It struck me as a poor attempt at a (partial) nude, not a vacation photo. -- moondigger 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the woman is cut off on both sides (bad composition). While Wikipedia is not censored, I don't see the need for nudity in an article on flotation, diffraction or sephia (supposing that's were the article would be put). It's logical to assume an article about autofellatio isn't worksafe. We should be able to safely watch any other article this image has been suggested for without getting fired... Just because Wikipedia isn't censored, doesn't mean this image should be used on anything else than topless related articles. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think that this illustrates any of the articles particularly well. Great shot though, very artistic. It might stand a chance on the Commons FPC. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Head missing. Iolakana|T 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It's a nice picture and demonstrates the subject well, but there's something bizarre-looking about the breasts being the only part not submerged. I can't look past that, but yeah, it's a good picture. --Jono 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing extra-ordinary about the picture (=No positives for me). Cut off head a distractor for art. Doesn't provide any significant insight to the topic it is used on. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the Caustic (optics) article HighInBC 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While perhaps this photo could be in another article (though I'd rather not have it there either), I don't think we need nude photos as featured pictures.--Joniscool98 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:. Can you elaborate which article this image would be more suitable for. For your second point, please go through this. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:. I quote from wikipedia's policy: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I do believe one would be able to find (or make) an image that is nonoffensive to people. Offensive pictures and photographs are allowed, but only if there's not an alternative that's as good, and in this case, I think an alternative can be found.--Joniscool98 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a difference between you imagining that a better image is available, and there actually being one currently available. The policy says "no equally suitable alternatives are available", it says nothing about your imagination. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-26 07:36
      • Yes, that true. But in order to replace the image, we need a better image. If an alternative is available, the image would be replaced in the article the new image proves better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- poor framing. Image is cut off at bottom. -- Longhair 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Headless. --Billpg 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Floating_on_water.jpg&oldid=1138506682"