Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:-Lindenstumpf,Panorama.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 17:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
How could you tell it is downsampled? I do not believe it is a legitimate reason to oppose the image --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment yes it is. see the guideline and the image's file history. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't think that just because it used 69 MP and it isn't anymore isn't any legitimate reason for opposing. It's still well within the guidelines at 17 MP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- A fine quality picture though not special enough to deserve the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice motive (natural monument, one of the 100 most beautiful Bavarian geotopes), nice lighning (cool blue sky, pleasant sunshine, appealing colors), good quality (sharpness is very good, no noise, no chromatic aberrations), composition is nice (interesting point of view, the photograher drawed the attention good to subject, I like the appropriate sign about the „Lindenstumpf“), good detail (resolution is good and big enough, details are nice. I actually don't like downscaling, but here it not harmful). Really clearly a FP to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent technical quality, well captured, geologically interesting structure, listed as natural monument and therefore with a high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A very nice landscape and good technical quality per kaʁstn. I also don't see the need for greater resolution (unless somebody wants to look after ants in the grass), but that information panel is just too distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The lighting is uninteresting, also giving some tough shadows from the trees. Perhaps if it was taken in the early morning or in the evening... LeavXC (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Great image, but the thing at the right-bottom appears distracting to me.--MASHAUNIX 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Same as Mashaunix. Looks better to me without the sign --Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I usually oppose downsampling, but I think that would be unfair here since the author went to the trouble of stitching an object which may have fit in one frame. I support per Carschten, this is an excellent illustration of the subject (which itself has geological interest... if not so stunning aesthetically). The information sign is an unusual choice, but since it's part of the scene when you approach this kind of object, I suppose it's valid, and it could easily be cropped if someone wanted to use the picture without it. --99of9 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Excellent detail level and light. Interesting subject. Do not like the sign although it can easily be cropped as 99of9 mentions. I have indicated an odd looking area close to the sky with some washed out twigs. This looks like the kind of stuff I sometimes make if I try to selectively denoise the sky, but fail to make my masking good enough and by error include some elements, which should not have been smoothed. It could also be motion blur? It just looks a little odd. Composition is quite good although not the best I have seen. --Slaunger (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support if I may sneak my support in before this is closed.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Voting closed. --Elekhh (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:-Lindenstumpf,Panorama.jpg&oldid=611692898"