Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montmorency waterfall, Québec, Québec.jpg

File:Montmorency waterfall, Québec, Québec.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 18:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Montmorency waterfall, Québec, Québec.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montmorency waterfall, Québec, Québec.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info All by -- The Photographer 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I love the sensation of looking out on a big panorama almost from within the waterfall. Really well done, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A different view of a waterfall. But could we have a geotag? Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral for the moment. Great motif and I see FP-potential. But I see two technical obstacles: The trees on the verry left side are obviously unsharp. The horizon is slightly bulged to the middle. I hope vou can fix that. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Well done. --Milseburg (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support missing the photographer support too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment The unsharp bit seems to be either a bad frame or poor stitching overlap. The right side is slightly leaning down, causing the horizon to be not level and the poles to not be straight - perhaps some vertical control points can bring things back. There's a stitching error in the wires that cross the river too. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• {o}For reasons above. If the nominator were the author, I would have said that this should have been checked before nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)]

Thanks Jebulon, I will try pay more atention. --The Photographer 23:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Too many stitching errors at the cables and the left side is unsharp for no reason. The motive is fascinating.--Ermell (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Done Thanks guys for the possitive feedback (negative votes or not), especially @Colin: and Milseburg. I uploaded another version in absolute full size and fixing the very left unsharp trees, the horizon (taking the Colin points control recomendation) and wires stitching problems. Please, tell me if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 20:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've had a quick look and the unsharp area and stitching issue is improved and the poles are now vertical, but the horizon now looks to dip a bit in the middle. It isn't easy if the "horizon" varies with height and distance, but perhaps some in-between value would help. You may be able to drag the vertical centre point a little to compensate. -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks @Colin: , please take another look and tell me what do you think. Btw I fixed severals dustspot overthere --The Photographer 23:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 19:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Looks good now. Colin (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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