Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whiskey Beach.jpg

File:Whiskey Beach.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 09:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Whiskey Beach.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whiskey Beach.jpg

•  Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support About the last place I saw my circular polariser :( -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - something's gone very badly wrong with the sea, flat, featureless, whitish. Where are the ripples and the sea colour? - MPF (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if you're ironic, but I lose nothing in explaining (I find the reasons you raised unfair): It's because of long exposure (exif says 25sec) and you can obtain this sort of results by using ND filters and/or eventually polarizers (which bring additional 2 stops loss). Lighting from early morning probably helps as well. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Or could it be evening ? - Benh (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Support nice use of long exposure (as always), but I'm supporting mainly for composition and color. --ianaré (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment What is the idea of the long exposure? --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment To make a potentially good pic look awful - MPF (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Nice --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Not special enough in my opinion. I find the composition and colours a bit boring. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Alvesgaspar, and the fact u lost ur polarizer there isn't special enough to me. You have much more impressive similar "surreal" pictures. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - not enough wow factor for me, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have seen too many images of this photographic affect of blurred moving water. How many FPs of this photographic effect does the wiki need? Snowmanradio (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per above.--MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Υπέρ --патриот8790^{Say whatever you want} 04:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)