Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hommik Mukri rabas.jpg

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

File:Hommik Mukri rabas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2014 at 19:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mukri bog in the october morning mist
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Janno Loide - nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Superb! -- Ivar (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the very real sense of depth. Great detail throughout. Prehistoric even. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. --King of ♠ 03:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cannot get enough of these wild Estonian scenes. Love the false-seeming color here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question. Yann (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support outstanding --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A magic picture and mood, mitigating the apparent oversaturation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding mood, light and superior quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors have been boosted to a great extent which makes the image, perhaps pretty and eye-catchy. I have to say no, as I would rather like to see a landscape as natural as possible --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dainomite (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overprocessed? Probably. Does it still work as a result? I think so. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors here are not boosted; they are even a bit muted actually. Even the rgb histogram suggests rather balanced than saturated colors. Except the sunrise red on the clouds. Yet this red cast is natural, can't help with that. It seems to me the oversaturation problem is probably related to Internet Explorer's inability to interpret color profiles embedded to the pictures. The only way I see the oversaturation here is with IE, the other browsers I tried (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Konqueror) show, similarily to each other, smoother colors here. No plans of starting a browser war, it's just what I found when browsing this photo on 3 different computers. Amadvr (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Processed until it becomes fake. --Graphium 05:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's the problem with the high performance of today's image processing software: If we see a scene that looks too beautiful to be true, we instantly suspect that there was heavy post-production involved. And often it is, but even that's not necessarily a bad thing: More often than not, a camera is simply not able to reproduce what the human eye would have seen, making PP a necessary tool in order to get a picture that resembles "reality". So, at which point does an image become "overprocessed"? It's difficult to draw the line, especially if you weren't there when the picture was taken. In the end the question is: "Do I belive the photographer that his/her work resembles what s/he saw at that moment?". After careful consideration, for me the answer is: "Yes, I do". Interestingly, for me it's getting far less surreal when when viewed at full resolution. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @El Grafo: My definition of "overprocessed" is if the (processed) photo does not represent reality. If the reality was not captured in the unprocessed photo and lots of processing has to be done to show the reality, it's fine with me. Anyways, how is that "overprocessed", and I wouldn't know how much processing had been done as well by the original creator. --Graphium 10:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Graphium: Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough: that was a purely rhetorical question and it seems like we have the same answer to it (does the picture show reality?). In cases like this, where we both weren't there, it boils down to (not) believing the judgement of the author. I do, you obviously don't, and that's perfectly fine imho. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural