Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jytland.Limfjord3.jpg

File:Jytland.Limfjord3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 14:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1010

1794

142

151

4256

2832

This area looks unsharp and almost blurred. Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/File:Jytland.Limfjord3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jytland.Limfjord3.jpg

1010

1794

142

151

4256

2832

This area looks unsharp and almost blurred. Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Info created by Strokin.ru - uploaded by Strokin - nominated by Strokin -- Александр Строкин (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This is an excellent picture in terms of composition, colours, lighting, sharpness and mood (though I would probably crop away a slight part of the bottom sea, but this is a highly personal opinion). --Cayambe (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support the quality could be better. Colour, light and subject are very good --Böhringer (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - There are a few spots that are a bit unsharp, also I would crop out a bit of the water near the bottom. Tiptoety ^talk 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support There is some CA and vignetting, but the composition is excellent. (I would even prefer leaving the bottom crop as is.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some second toughts after reviewing with another monitor: the highlights are burned. Is there any change the author could lower the exposure or just the highlights from the original raw file? Also, any volunteers to lower the vignetting after that? :-) I think it would be worth it for this excellent composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I did take a look at this. Most of the vignetting went quite well but the bottom right was persistent. Care would also need to be taken with lower exposure only as there are already some clipped areas at the other end too. Throw in the ca and while I agree it is a nicely composed image there is quite a bit to do to really get it to an FP standard maybe? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Vignetting. Its a nice scene but I think we should expect very high quality for FPs. --Korall (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Korall. --99of9 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think in the absence of being fixed this image has too many issues with quality to be FP for me sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Herbythyme. —kallerna™ 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Per Herby. Tiptoety ^talk 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image has a slight CW tilt. I would like some more location info on the image. The Limfjord has a coast line of about 1000 km, so specifying nothing but the Limfjord is a too unprecise specification of the location IMO. Good light and composition, but not too impressive overall image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)