Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View over Reinevågen towards north, Moskenes, Nordland, Norway, 2017 April.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:View over Reinevågen towards north, Moskenes, Nordland, Norway, 2017 April.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 22:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Norway
Info Another amazing Norwegian landscape by Ximonic, I really like the colours and the overall stormy atmosphere. created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Question Beautiful view with dramatic sky. But why is it barely 7 Mpix from a 18Mpix camera? --C messier (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because to combat noise, which the older camera always produced quite a lot in these conditions, and people seemed not to like noise at all. I just always wanted to drive the attention to the scene rather than the pixels, even in full size, and that's my personal preference.--Ximonic (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't that a violation of the rule not to downsample a photo so that it looks sharper (OK, less noisy)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- For me personally, it doesn't matter. But if it's a strict rule, maybe then it cannot be FP, and I would be OK with it. It wouldn't change my opinion on how I like to process my own pictures though. Especially those, which were taken by an inferior camera, I had to approach very differently and do sacrifices. I only want to feel comfortable with them. I would like to mention though, in those rather retro times, this was normal in the photo community of Commons. For example, I was a huge fan of the work by Luca Galuzzi at the time when I got the drive to photograph for Wikipedia, and up until very recent days I've been using that same old gear as back then. I couldn't magically raise my standards with yesterdays equipment though so that's where I come from. Concider, that I have basically been stuck in the year 2009 until 2021. --Ximonic (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, as far as I know there is no official rule that you can't downsample a photo. It's just this page tends to dislike it on principle. Of course you are free to oppose on that basis. Personally I think the picture we do have is still worthy of FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't check Commons:Image guidelines. In the "Quality and featured photographic images" section, the second guideline is: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." Later in the paragraph, FPs are referenced specifically: "for Featured Pictures, the original non-downsampled version is preferred" (this refers to exceptions in which downsampling is otherwise acceptable, but those are "images of living persons" and not landscapes, in any case). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen that page before, it is useful but also they are only 'guidelines' and I see photos that don't fit them perfectly pass FPC quite a lot. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Looks very flat. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Light is a bit flat, but the bizarre shapes of the mountains and the exciting colour contrast – cold colours in water and on the mountains, warm earthy shades in the flatland, vivid red on the houses – more than make up for it. --Aristeas (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I like the atmosphere and the view, but irrespective of the discussion about downsampling, the composition doesn't fully work for me. But I do think it should be sharper, especially as a downsampled photo of this size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)- Support Per Aristeas, manages to be beautiful in its dreariness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Tagooty (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support quite a colourful one. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Norway
