Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg

File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 21:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info View on Hochwilde (3480m), a mountain of the Ötztal Alps photographed from a trail near Lazinser Alm inside the Texelgruppe Nature Park
  all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Good composition, though lighting could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question What had been better light for you here, King of Hearts? The creek and mountain are in sunlight, the trees at the left are partly in shadow which is imho a good contrast to the bright and snowy mountain. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a bit flat, an unavoidable consequence of shooting at noon. Granted, it might be the best possible light for this scene (as sunrise/sunset could create unwanted shadows) which is why I still supported, but not particularly inspiring in an absolute sense. The composition and contrasting colors are what I like about this image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose As already mentioned, the flat lighting. Personally, the image doesn't bring any wow for me, it's a pretty common sight. Sorry, but I can't see this as FP in any way. --LB 08:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment LB, I tried to capture the beauty of that place. I like the place and think I've chosen I good composition to transport that beauty. For me it is far from being a "common sight". I cannot say if a different shooting time had been better but the valley is quite narrow thus I think you will have distracting shadows, as King of Hearts has mentioned. BTW: A comment "does not bringing any wow for me" is not really appreciating. You should keep in mind that most of us spend a lot of time to produce nice photos. IMHO it is better to stay factual rather emphasizing two times that you cannot imagine why this [bad photo] should be an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, what do you regard as a "factual" review? Dust spots and chroma noise pixel peeping? FP requires an emotional response to an image, "wow", and a failure to deliver that to a reviewer is just important a flaw as any other subjective opinion on composition or lighting. I think "I can't see this as FP in any way" is too strong/rude considering this is far from being FPX. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Colin, I can say what is imho no deliberative (better word) review: Writing two times that an photo is no FP in any manner as LC did. It is absolutely OK to write: The images has no wow for me. Assessing FPCs is always subjective and not fully factual. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tuxyso: I apologise for saying that I can't see this as FP in any way, I didn't mean to sound rude and I agree that it was too much. I do, however, stand to the statement that the image doesn't appeal to me. I do appreciate your work. --LB 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, LB for the clarification. Everything is fine - the statement (mentioned once) is completely OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• {{o}}}  Neutral as I said during the QI process. For me not good enough with sharpness, therefore not FP-quality. --Hubertl (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hubertl - you've reviewed a different image :) For me the photo is sharp enough - a lot of details are visible on the trees, wood in the foreground and on the mountain itself. --10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment You are right, I am really sorry for my mistake. This one is better, even when I am not absolutely convinced for FP. Sorry. So I go to neutral. --Hubertl (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive composition. --Laitche (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Another picture I wish I could say I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm also not comfortable with the light. The very bright snow opposing the very dark shadows leave very little range for everything in-between, and the colours are very muted as a result. — Julian H.^✈ 11:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Julian--LivioAndronico talk 16:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support For me it has wow and I think a reasonable tradeoff has been made regarding the light, presence of shadows and time of day. I almost feel I can sense the fresh air and hear the stream of fresh water coming down. It is a little soft in focus in the upper right corner, but OK for me. I like the diagonal coming down from that corner. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The photo reminds me of the mood in the Edward Elgars work for choir and orchestra From the Bavarian Highlands; 4th and 5th songs "Aspiration" and "On the Alm". Although the location is not exactly the same... ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lighting is not the best, but acceptable in my opinion. The main issue I see here is the composition. The cropped fence is a minus and the square format is IMHO not helping to get into the picture. A protrait format from a bit further to the right (without fence) and closer to the river, could have worked better (not sure, because I don't know the spot). I mean something like this. Poco² 13:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hehe, Poco_a_poco, photos are a very subjective matter. The composition is the aspect I like most (and most of the supporters) with this photo and was for me besides the beauty of the place the reason for nomination. Every element (also the cropped fence) is there on purpose. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I usually don't like this aspect ratio but I can feel the depth in this composition especially the combination of a creek and a path with this angle are excellent, seems very narrow valley so this sky is acceptable as well. --Laitche (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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