Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Leathan Waterfall, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg

File:Loch Leathan Waterfall, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2014 at 14:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Leathan Waterfall, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Leathan Waterfall, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Proof that I still take photos other than church interiors. :-) -- Diliff (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--LivioAndronico talk 16:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. Some kind of HDR, or exposure stacking? Usually it’s hard not to blow an overcast sky like this in order to get the ground properly exposed. --Kreuzschnabel 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, true. This is a bracketed HDR image, but only comprised of two exposures, one for the foreground and the other for the sky. Diliff (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support because I want more churches... just kidding, very nice. --Kadellar (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Scottish bias. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I feel younger than ten years old.  A l p h a m a  ^Talk 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ///EuroCarGT 13:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. I even can hear the bagpipes.... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
•  Neutral Sorry to interrupt but I am not entirely convinced. For me, the grass is a little too green and the sky colours to strong. The image appears to be slightly over-processed imo.--ArildV (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The sky, I can appreciate your opinion... I did push the contrast on the sky as bright overcast clouds tend to lose their definition in photography (as Kreuzschnabel mentioned) but I disagree that the grass is too green. I didn't adjust the saturation. Scotland is just very green in summer. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Not that it really matters to the nomination at this stage, but to show that the grass saturation has not been adjusted, here's one of the original files in Lightroom, with Lightroom settings visible to show that the saturation set to 0. I think the grass looks basically identical to the image on Commons. The main difference is, of course, the sky. Diliff (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • • Diliff, thank you for your comments and images. I hope you did not interpret my comment as a general criticism of you images or general criticism of photo editing and of course I trust you when you say that the grass saturation has not been adjusted (you do not need to prove it). The combination (with my knowledge of Scotland, the light in these latitudes, habitat type) of the cloudy sky and the bright colors on the ground seemed somewhat unrealistic. Of course I can be wrong but i dont think it matter regarding my vote because I dont think the picture is especially beautiful with these colors (and therefore no WOW). I think I had supported your attached image (and I do not think the grass looks identical). Anyway, I voted neutral and you seem to get enough support.--ArildV (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
          • No problem, no offence was taken. It wasn't necessarily to prove that I was right or anything like that. I think it's just important to be objective and not just make claims but demonstrate them, if possible. Even if you did believe me when I said the saturation hadn't been adjusted, it's still educational (I think) to see how the original image compares to the HDR image. We all know that HDR processing can be realistic and it can be unrealistic. If we can see the original file, we have a baseline for what is realistic, instead of having to guess at what we feel something 'should' look like. Even if it doesn't change someone's mind (and it appears that it didn't in this case), it's still educational. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with ArildV.--Jebulon (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 05:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--ApolloWissen (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 12:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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