Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Claus-Christian Carbon.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Claus-Christian Carbon.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2019 at 14:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
- Info created by C.Suthorn - uploaded by C.Suthorn - nominated by C.Suthorn -- C.Suthorn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- C.Suthorn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question - This is really two different photos, so why isn't it presented as a set, rather than a composite photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan, if you look at the file page and scroll down a bit, you see that it's a stereogram and how such images should be viewed. C.Suthorn should pehaps have written this in the nom info since such photos are quite rare here and people don't always read the whole file page before commenting. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I added the info in the nomination. From the edit windows I can see that this ended up in CSS class wpImageAnnotatorFile and is shown as an alt tag/text on the nomination. Not very visible me thinks... --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should we have special glasses to view this kind of image? I don't think I'll vote on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is a wiggle version of the file, it doesn't need any glasses and it is linked from the file description page. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan and others, there is a way you can see this photo in 3D without special glasses. Pull up the photo on your phone and hold the phone so that it fills the screen. Hold you hand flat, fingers straight up, right between the two parts of the photo so it acts like a "wall" between them. Then look at the photo so close that your thumb touches your nose, that way you will only use one eye for each part of the picture, and it comes out in 3D. --Cart (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should we have special glasses to view this kind of image? I don't think I'll vote on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ikan, if you look at the file page and scroll down a bit, you see that it's a stereogram and how such images should be viewed. C.Suthorn should pehaps have written this in the nom info since such photos are quite rare here and people don't always read the whole file page before commenting. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support Now that I have used the phone trick to view the photo, I'll admit it is a cleverly constructed 3D thing, with him leaning forward from the chair and the Mona Lisa behind, you get three layers on the left and the book case acts like a continuous front-to-back reference on the right. --Cart (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain Complicated. Can't see it, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Both Cart's method and the wiggle file are uncomfortable for me. I
'm tempted to oppose this kind of trick photography on that basis, but I'll simply decline to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not some newfangled "trick photography", stereoscopy is an old and established method of creating 3D photos. View-Masters was something most kids had way back when (I loved mine). We need special programs to properly view 360-panoramas or they look really weird as ordinary photos; this is a similar thing where you need something extra to appreciate the photo properly. The panos are promoted regularly so I don't understand the adverse reactions to this. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's because there's a comfortable way to view them. This site needs a tool for fairly judging a stereoscopic photo. But without one, I can't judge this photo. You've reminded me: I looked through a view-master, too, when I was a kid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- And you're right, of course. I've seen 19th-century stereoscopic photos and should know better than to have made that silly remark above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Andrei (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I just let my eyes cross and it works. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I tried, but then I see four guys with four paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are two types of steroscopic pictures: those for cross-eyed and those for wall-eyed vision. So if you choose the wrong sight (as you did by crossing your eyes), the depth of the background is inverted and disturbing. Therefore many stereos are signed with 'X' for cross- and '||' for wall-eyed vision. Here it is for wall-eyed vision, witch is unfortunately limited by the distance of your eyes. So if two conjugated points in the two picures are more distant than the distance of your eyes, you have to be Marty Feldmann to see it in 3D (or downsize the picture). Basically X-pictures like this or that, where you have to squint are more easyly to see and can be looked at over a wide scale of magnification. --PtrQs (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question I don't get it – what's the point besides "it's 3D"? I mean, when somebody nominates a 360° spherical panorama, it's typically of a place that fore some reason lends itself to be shot in such a way. So what's the reason of choosing this person in the foreground, what does it/he have to do with La Gioconda and why are there two versions of the painting in the background? --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Prof. Carbon is the author of a scientific paper, whose main point is, that the version of the Mona Lisa from the Prado and the version from the Louvre (both painted at the same time in da Vinci's studio) together form a 500 year old stereogram. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Like something from a Dan Brown novel. :) --Cart (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: did you get the point now? --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: makes a lot of sense now, but that really needs to be part of the file description. This knowledge is essential for understanding the picture, it's the difference between "wtf?" and "this is genius!" … --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: added to file decription. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: makes a lot of sense now, but that really needs to be part of the file description. This knowledge is essential for understanding the picture, it's the difference between "wtf?" and "this is genius!" … --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: did you get the point now? --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)