Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg

File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 06:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Drents-Friese Wold National Park. Location Dieverzand. Dead tree, important food source in a balanced ecosystem. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Could you please add a category above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Answer: sorry I do not know what you mean. Are the English language is not powerful. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done --Laitche (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality and the composition are good but not outstanding, the blue sky can be seen among the trees ruins the wet-ish atmosphere, Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition does not work for me; it is too busy for my taste. Lightning is too dark and dull as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the idea and the subject, but I'm not fully convinced by the composition - it's quite busy. Just some ideas that came to my head: 1) A lower angle could have enabled you to keep the branches at the top left corner out of the frame. Maybe concentrating on one of the two sections of the dead tree would have helped too. 2) The whole image is quite dark, but not dark enough to make this look like an intentional choice by the photographer (could potentially work very well with this subject). 3) The white balance seems to be a little bit too yellow (you won't have much living green things this time of the year of course, but still …). 4) I've got a suspicion that this subject might work quite well in black & white. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am also unconvinced by the composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Question Seems left side trees leaning to the left and right side trees leaning to the right. Is that actually leaning or cause by the distortion with the wide angle lens(18mm)? --Laitche (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Answer: I have automatically corrected lens with lightroom 5.7. Can also manually correct. For your information: it is hilly spot.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Small correction WB and verticals.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better with the correction. For me, wow is limited, but the quality is very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the composition is much better but about the quality(especially the colour range) seems rather difficult with EF-M for this photo, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Note: in my humble opinion is in early April not much color in a dark forest. It was important for me to bring the decay of dead tree good picture and that life in the vicinity of the tree has benefited. And I succeeded in my opinion. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Small light correction.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Useful but I don't see a FP here. The tree branches in the top left break the composition. Image quality is adequate but not outstanding. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)