Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I-40 near NM.jpg

File:I-40 near NM.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 06:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:I-40 near NM.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I-40 near NM.jpg

•  Info created by Nicholas on flickr - uploaded by Holderca1 - nominated by Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor image quality: artifacts and over-saturation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any artifacts in the photo, and I disagree that it is over saturated. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- I'm afraid that is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Please check the yellows and greens (oversaturation) and the road in the foreground (jpeg artifacts) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And I disagree. What you're calling artifacts I'm calling the natural blurriness because that portion of the road is in front of the focal area and so isn't covered in the depth of focus in the photo. As for oversaturation, that's how reflectorized MUTCD Green looks in the sunshine, so the green isn't "oversaturated". The DOTs in the US are switching from FHWA Highway Gothic to Clearview as the typeface family used on highway signs. The reasoning is that Clearview has been designed to account for the halation caused by the fully reflectorized sheeting required by the MUTCD on highway road signs. (Unless, of course. the sign is internally or externally lit. Highway signs must now appear the same at night under headlights as they do during the day so even the background green color has to be reflectorized.) That also means that when direct lighting, and in this case bright sunshine, hits a highway sign, it will be that bright, by design. The yellows look like the naturally dry grasses that they are. At most, that issue could be fixed with a simple image adjustment if deemed necessary. If you're discussing the yellow of the highway's centerline, that is also reflective paint. It's supposed to look like that. Sorry, but on two, if not all three, of your points, there are technical explanations. Imzadi 1979 → 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is oversaturated, in all hues, maybe even more in the sky than in the yellow line and the green on the sign. It is overprocessed and looks oily and smeared. Not a FP to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversaturated, sky blured to suppress artifacts due to oversaturation, but overlaps at the edges of the mountain, which is clearly visible. --Niabot (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The colors are fantastic. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Colors are nice but unnatural. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No they aren't... Admrboltz (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The objects farther back in the image, such as the guide sign, look a little blurry. The quality is not the best for a potential image that could be taken at this location. Dough4872 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Imzadi ComputerGuy (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)