Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maroon Bells at sunrise, Aspen Colorado.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Maroon Bells at sunrise, Aspen Colorado.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 18:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by Lorie Shaull on Flickr (Lashaull) - uploaded by MB298 - nominated by MB298 -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Support -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The foreground needs some more brightness, otherwise a good photo. The description is completely missing and a geotag is needed, too. --Code (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)- Oppose As per Code. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support I love the way the shadows work to frame the reflection in the water. It's a difficult enough shot to not blowout the sky while still capturing the reflection. Kudos. Atsme 📞 13:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I don't get this attitude towards shadows. Shadows are dark, that's what they are. Sometimes I question whether people look at images full size ot just say "too dark" based on thumbnails (which are always much darker than the image itself). Anyway Neutral because quality is not the best. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @KennyOMG: Of course I only vote after having looked at each image in full size. Hope this answers your question. --Code (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Info Thanks so very much for the nomination MB298 Info about the shot, it was sunrise, with much of the landscape in shadows so in post-processing, I kept it that way. When I looked up other photos of Maroon Bells shots there were a lot that were over processed. I was going for a lighter touch for what it looked like at the time. I do take mild exception to the "not the best" comment though KennyOMG.The quality of your comment is not the best, not helpful & not productive. None-the-less appreciate all the comments & taking the time to take a look and comment! (Lashaull Lashaull (talk)
- @Lashaull: Thank you for giving some information about the picture. I think very little brightening of the shadows were needed to improve it. Could you consider adding a location tag of the place and some technical information about the shot to the description page? Regards --Code (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Lashaull: , if you're quoting me please do so by the letter: "not the best". If you want to get offended at an objective observation, well, I guess that's our prerogative but that doesn't help anyone. You should also note the fact that I voted neutral on your pic as I actually like it enough not to oppose on the issue of general softness and lack of details in the shadows. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Code. Parts of it are way too dark. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
