Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gorbea - Caballo 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Gorbea - Caballo 01.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 20:48:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality, but no wow factor for me. INeverCry 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment It would have been better is the lower part of the horse's legs and hoofs had not been hidden. A bolder and more dramatic crop somehow, would not be amiss either. cart-Talk 21:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutral - I really could go either way on this. I think it would be fine to feature this photo; it's very good. But I also agree with the others. Ergo, neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)- Support Yes, it would be even better if we could see all its hooves, but to me it is an FP even without them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose not for me because of the composition. Charles (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. The horse is too small in the frame and the hooves. -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. According to the category suggested, this is meant to be a picture of a horse, but in that case the horse itself is way too small in it. Centered composition does not help here either. --Kreuzschnabel 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
- Info I've tried some other crops, this is the one I like most. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like my horse anyway... :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree this is a better crop as it needs to be close. The horizon is perhaps a little distractingly steep angle (I'm sure your camera is level). But the hooves are still a problem and this is getting a bit small/lacking detail for FP. -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support Crop is much better and at this high percentage of horse in the picture, I don't miss the hoofs that much. Support is weak only because the file is now so small. Had this been the original shot at full strength and detail, my support would have been full. cart-Talk 21:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support - I feel fairly comfortable supporting this version, even though the horse is still a bit softly focused on part of its body. I find this composition much more interesting than the other one, which really feels to me like it's emphasizing the rocks as much or more than the horse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Much better than the other version but still below FP level for me. The foreground rock is too dominant IMHO, the horse partly hidden, the overall image on the verge to underexposure. Compared to other horse FPs, this is not too special – keep in mind a FP needs to be more than just good, we look for excellence. --Kreuzschnabel 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin & Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 08:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
