Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aussicht Kleiner Gleichberg Süd.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Aussicht Kleiner Gleichberg Süd.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 10:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the stone run on the summit of Kleiner Gleichberg southward. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)}}
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daphne Lantier 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Neptuul (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not jaded at what an achievement this is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Half the image is of rubble, with the piles on the left and right dominating the image. 2000px vertical is not very high resolution for a panorama and this image suffers from lack of detail in the distant hill and trees are just green smudges. There's not enough sky. When one looks out at a landscape from a high viewpoint, one sees a lot of sky, so the vertical crop here is unnatural. I like the sunlight/rain on the right side of the distance, though the effect isn't strong. The left distance is just dark and gloomy and little detail. A central crop concentrating on the hill would be a better image, though far too low resolution for FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again I think you're not right, Colin. A large resolution doesn't make a FP. Sky can be seen everywhere. It´s not necessary to blow up this image with content not characteristic for this location. I also diasgree with your proposed cut. The "rubble" (en:stone run) is characteristic for this mountain. It would be totaly wrong, to exclude right this. Especially regarding the use in any wiki-projekt. --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- While a large resolution doesn't make an FP, a low resolution most certainly does diminish it's chances. Given that 2Mp was the short dimension when cameras were 6MP, and was the long dimension when cameras didn't even reach 2MP, there is little excuse for a modern panorama being so short height-wise. Stick your camera in portrait orientation and get a larger height. This is about our finest work, and yet you keep nominating images that have no composition qualities that IMO put them among our finest works. Simply rotating the camera around the tripod head on a high viewpoint in Germany is not sufficient to make an FP. Where's the "great light", where's the "great composition", where's the "superb detail". There isn't anything here that makes me think this is close to FP I'm afraid. I'm quite familiar with mountains and very typically the rough ground / stones at one's feet is not photogenic, and isn't generally part of the view one wants to include to a great degree. It's all about deciding what to include and frame in your picture, and these panorama just seem to lack any compositional/framing decision-making at all. Have a look at the FP category. There are images there that pop off the screen and make you go wow. That's FP. Not this I'm afraid. This is just a view. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Colin, we keep having different opinions and preferences. In Germany a lot of summits are able to impress by itself. Obviously I'm more excited about this motifs than you. --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- While a large resolution doesn't make an FP, a low resolution most certainly does diminish it's chances. Given that 2Mp was the short dimension when cameras were 6MP, and was the long dimension when cameras didn't even reach 2MP, there is little excuse for a modern panorama being so short height-wise. Stick your camera in portrait orientation and get a larger height. This is about our finest work, and yet you keep nominating images that have no composition qualities that IMO put them among our finest works. Simply rotating the camera around the tripod head on a high viewpoint in Germany is not sufficient to make an FP. Where's the "great light", where's the "great composition", where's the "superb detail". There isn't anything here that makes me think this is close to FP I'm afraid. I'm quite familiar with mountains and very typically the rough ground / stones at one's feet is not photogenic, and isn't generally part of the view one wants to include to a great degree. It's all about deciding what to include and frame in your picture, and these panorama just seem to lack any compositional/framing decision-making at all. Have a look at the FP category. There are images there that pop off the screen and make you go wow. That's FP. Not this I'm afraid. This is just a view. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again I think you're not right, Colin. A large resolution doesn't make a FP. Sky can be seen everywhere. It´s not necessary to blow up this image with content not characteristic for this location. I also diasgree with your proposed cut. The "rubble" (en:stone run) is characteristic for this mountain. It would be totaly wrong, to exclude right this. Especially regarding the use in any wiki-projekt. --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support pace Colin - but the image works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support after reading Colin and Milseburg's exchange. The technical shortcomings are not as bad as some other images, and having hiked amid similar stone runs I totally understand that it's the real subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
