Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw.jpg

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 16:57:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
•  Info Threatening clouds above a beautifully situated moorland lake. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- I think this is a very fine image. I especially love all the varied tones in the sky. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose See no reason for B&W here. It doesn't look realistic to me, and even if intended that way, not pleasing to my eyes. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Benh. I feel the b/w doesn't add anything to this image, it detracts from it. --Peulle (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - Very convincing to me. I'm just enjoying this picture, not imagining what it would look like as a color photo, which IMO it doesn't need to be. It works as itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't find the clouds very threatening in this or the original color photo. It looks like a nice but unremarkable day by the lake. Cropping away a bit of the bottom and right to center it, and turning up the drama in the B&W could work though. Example. --cart-Talk 14:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

*  Comment : Thank you for your comments and advice. Alternative version posted.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - Now that I've seen the color version, I prefer the black & white version, either this way or in cart's suggested edit. The color version is more ordinary-looking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose as below: not really wowed --El Grafo (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Support I think this is more balanced and intense. Also 'pinging' previous voters to let them know the alt exists: PumpkinSky, Benh, Basotxerri, Peulle, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz. --cart-Talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support agree, this one is better. PumpkinSky talk 17:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@U and PumpkinSky: , Benh, Basotxerri, Peulle, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz Alternative versie; File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw b.jpg placed.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per Pumpkin. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but to me it only got worse... looks like the sky was artificially darkened, making the whole set even less natural IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I like this better as b/w. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment - More dramatic, but I'm sympathetic to Benh's argument. What would the counterargument be to the charge of artificial darkening? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment The human eye is capable of detecting a wider range of high-low lightings ("dynamic range") than the sensor of a camera. The other argument is that a B&W conversion is already a step off from reality and thus B&W permits by a somewhat exaggerate use of higher contrasts and selective highlighting and moving to shadows (including "dodge and burn") than a colour image. You may or may not agree but that's the essence of B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I'll  Support this version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose please give me a valid reason for a bw nature image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - Really? Because b&w is a perfectly valid type of photography. If you don't like the photo, fine, but automatically opposing based on the lack of color is not reasonable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Alchemist-hp: Info Ikan Kekek Why a B&W nature photo? One name: Ansel Adams. Agree with Ikan, if you don't like the photo fine, but to flat out oppose because it's B&W is not a valid oppose IMHO. PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Benh - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm more than fine with b&w for landscapes and I do like this one better than the alternative, but I'm missing something that would me go "wow!" here. --El Grafo (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)