Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg

File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 21:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
•  Info c.u.n by me, -- cart-Talk 21:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 21:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Great texture PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive at full (huge) size -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Basile, you shoot the beaches and water where you live, and I do the same. The results are very different. :-) --cart-Talk 12:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting technique. And per PumpkinSky, great texture -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I wouldn't be sad if it's promoted (it will), but the very tight framing at the bottom ruins it a little to me. - Benh (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Benh, the reason there is so little water at the bottom, is because there is so little water. This photo is taken from a stone pier running along and outwards from the cliff (see the place on Google map). If I had gone wider at the bottom, it would have been bushes and grass on the left side (see this photo) and boats and jetties to the right (see this photo). I think that a clean waterline is better. Sometimes you have to give in to geography. --cart-Talk 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I may be missing something, but seems to me you could have gotten closer to the water. - Benh (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I could, but then the upward/outward angle would be too great to cover the whole cliff (it is high, steep and wide) in panorama without any serious distortion. Since I don't have a DSLR that I can fit with the perfect lens for each photo-op, I always have to weigh the pros and cons when I take pictures. Since the cliff itself was the main subject, I was more interested in getting it right than having more water. If this gets promoted, I'm sure someone with better equipment than mine can go to the cliff, make a perfect shot and then have my version delisted. I'm not trying to make you change your vote, I only explain the situation. --cart-Talk 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wasn't close to change my vote, but just a legitimate question right? ;) - Benh (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• And btw, I bet the distorsion wouldn't look bad on that "non geometric" kind of subject. - Benh (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not a very experienced panorama builder, so I prefer to play it safe for the time being. --cart-Talk 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support nice work.--Ermell (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I've been waiting a while to work my way up to this one. The LargeImage viewer wasn't on the ball, so I took a look at it on Flickr and it's as good as it looks at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is also the 50% version here if you want to be absolutely sure. :) It's larger than Flickr but not too large. --cart-Talk 16:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thanks; I checked again and it is working just fine ... delicious! Those cliffs remind me of a popular climbing spot in the Adirondacks (not that I climb; a little scrambling during a hike is enough for me). I can see some spots where I'm sure some climbers would like to set up a rope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nothing extra special. --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Karelj. Yes high resolution, but the light is not that good. --A.Savin 05:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, per Karelij. Except the high resolution no eye-catcher for me. --Milseburg (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but nothing extraordinary or special. I have seen a lot of such rocky mountains during my trips. -- Pofka (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support not only because of the resolution --Stepro (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Sweden