Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stocherkähne in Tübingen an der Neckarfront gesehen von der Treppe vor der Neckarmauer 2019 002.jpg

File:Stocherkähne in Tübingen an der Neckarfront gesehen von der Treppe vor der Neckarmauer 2019 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 18:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Stocherkähne in Tübingen an der Neckarfront gesehen von der Treppe vor der Neckarmauer 2019 002.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stocherkähne in Tübingen an der Neckarfront gesehen von der Treppe vor der Neckarmauer 2019 002.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
•  Info created by dktue - uploaded by dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dktue (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Request Please add a geolocation (GPS coordinates). – Lucas 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  

 Comment I added geolocation --Dktue (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Quality is not perfect - the detail on the tree at the right looks a little bit blocky, which looks like a fault with the processing to me (perhaps too much noise reduction smoothing out detail?) But downsize to 3500px across and the problem is no longer noticeable. As for the composition, I find it really beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a nice view but the duck barely having entered the frame, the treetop in front, the treetops in the far distance and house facade all being cut off makes me feel too uneasy looking at this. I would have either included more on the top or focused in the water. – Lucas 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  

 Comment Do you prefer any of these two alternatives: Alternative 1, Alternative 2 --Dktue (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support alternative 2. – Lucas 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative 2 is nice, I agree. Cmao20 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Alt 2 is good. I'd crop or clone out the branches at the upper left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Would support alt #2 as well. Ikan is right with the highlight burns. It's just a little though. You can easily put the whites down gradually from the upper right corner. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Dktue, you are new to this forum so we are more lenient with you, but in the future please try to keep discussions about suitable FPC options/alternatives at COM:CRIT. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, @Cart! :-) --Dktue (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - All are beautiful compositions, but the brightest highlights look blown in all 3, so I'd want you to dial those down a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I would suggest to follow Ikan’s/Jakub’s hint, of course, i.e. dial the brightest hightlights a bit down. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas. --Cart (tAlternatialk) 08:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 12:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd prefer the alternatives. Millennium bug (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of composition. Alternative 2 might work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the way the bright willow stands out against the dull earth tones of the still-bare trees, so very early spring, but it comes through better in the Alternative 1 above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others--BoothSift 23:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Boothsift 05:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)