Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saslonch da Mont de Seuc.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Saslonch da Mont de Seuc.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 18:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I will support this when the stitching errors are fixed.--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The mistakes in the sky on the left side I meant or am I the only one who sees them?--Ermell (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment You are not alone. --Granada (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Impressive szene and size, but there are visible edges in the upper left area. So not perfect and not FP yet. The lower left corner is unsharp. --Milseburg (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done @Milseburg: , @Ermell: , @Isiwal: , thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Still work to do. With such an impressive landscape, nobody is looking up at the sky, but still the bug should be fixed. Please take a look at the note.--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am a bit worried how quickly some motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully. Moroder has many good motives and good equipment. Such issues should be resolved prior to nomination. My tip would be to reduce the nomination rate a bit and take a closer look when processing the photos. By the way it would be interesting to fill in the Template:Panorama complete. How many frames are this? Which stitcher is used? --Milseburg (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now till the editing errors are fixed - should not be too difficult. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral pending resolution of the edge on the cloud. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done I hope I've fixed definitely the last flows. I agree with Milseburg that "motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully" but it's a hard work with such big photos and I promise I'll be more accurate and hope not to rely on all the hints of the reviewers (which I appreciate a lot) in future. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- CommentAlso at the risk that I will be seen here as picky but there is still something to do, see note. In some parts of the sky you can also see traces of the brush. I would remove the light posterization with the soft focus.--Ermell (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support IMO OK --Isiwal (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid the sky is still not OK. But the strong posterizations are easy to fix.
- Comment Sorry but for me there are to much processing traces visible as hems around the clouds in the upper left area to be a FP. FPs have to be perfect even when the resolution is high. --Milseburg (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose there is posterization all over the clouds. – LucasT 10:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Italy
