Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rules1.jpg

File:Rules1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 16:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rules1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rules1.jpg

•  Info all concerning the picture by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• First things first: I  Support! I love your images and this is again a very good one. The composition is lovely but not perfect (tight crop at right and left, foreground a bit full/distracting), the lightning and the colours are very good. Not soooo good at your picture is the quality. Sharpness is okay, but I don't understand ISO 200... Sky is noisy, and I think the whole quality would be better with ISO 100. But of course it's not too bad (you see, I support :-)). Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) if you want to answer please do it in German ;-)
  • Erstens: I'm sure you may understand my poor english, which is much better than my german ( ich mag lieber Deutsch, aber english is easier to use...). ISO 200: Very simple: it was for me the beginning of the use of this new camera. It is an automatic setting and the lowest one, and I didn't know how to change it at the time !!! Am Ende: Vielen Dank für alle unverdiente Komplimente --Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ein bisschen Deutsch war ja dabei :-) The compliments are accurate! I know the problem with the cameras where 200 looks likes the lowest ISO... Pity, but overall at your image not too bad. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, and since I am in the water sector, double nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too poor quality (lacking details) to be considered. What lens are you using? ISO 200 should not be a limiting factor here. Lycaon (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Welcome back, Lycaon !--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • thank you, and what lens? Lycaon (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I think Lycaon has a point here. You really have to find some sous and purchase a couple of higher quality lenses: one multi-purpose zoom and one macro. I wonder why the image is so undetailed and blurred. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • SO undetailed ? SO blurred ? A bit exageration IMhO...--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The picture is good enough for its intended purpose. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• That are the quality problems I tried to pointed out... But I don't find them too bad --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral I agree with Tomascastelazo: nice and useful image that is certainly good enough for its intended purpose. But due to some minor flaws (e.g. noise in the sky at full resolution) just not FP... -- MJJR (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Weak support noisy and blurred, however it looks very attractive Cathy Richards (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Cathy Richards, especially on the effect on the water. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon.--MASHAUNIX 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)