Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mukri raba 1.jpg

File:Mukri raba 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2014 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mukri raba 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mukri raba 1.jpg

707

1511

6795

347

8321

2800

This part of the image looks "weird" to me, as if an attempt has been been done to hightlight shadows more than the signal/noise ratio could justify. POssibly combined with a too agressive noise reduction. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Info created and uploaded by Vamps - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Crisp detail, lovely mood. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 11:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great atmosphere. –Makele-90 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DXR (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Reluctant oppose I have been revisiting this photo a few times to make up my mind. The mood, atmosphere and wow is there, but I am not entirely convinced about the value. Lake + fog + fir + sunrise. Very pretty, but is it among "our finest" when we also consider value? Moreover, I think there some semi-serious image quality issues in the transition from lake to trees, see image note. (And sorry I spoiled the support party). --Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Beauty has its own value. So does unspoiled nature. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Saffron Blaze: Per our guidelines: 'beautiful does not always mean valuable'. I think there is also a regional aspect in this. The view here has similarities to views I get in spring or autumn in the early morning, when commuting to work, so for me it is perhaps not as valuable as for others. I fully respect that others find it valuable based on their mindset and cultural values. --Slaunger (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoever added that statement to the guidelines was a Wikipedian not a Commoner nor a photographer I suspect. I think many would agree our guidelines are a pile of contradictory or unclear shit. You can make them support just about any argument. That's why you rarely see me appeal to them for authority. If you had said, "pretty, but no value to me because I see this every day" Then I would not have pointed out beauty has value. However, if you compare this to our finest landscapes, it holds up well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support I like it enough to overlook the quality issues. There is some CA at the lower left corner (ok at this resolution) and the shadow areas are somewhat undefined, but it's almost impossible to get better shadow definition at this dynamic range. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support very nice and at least a perfect foto for the real lake Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Leitoxx 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 15:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Leitoxx ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 01:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena