Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Neuer Leuchtturm Borkum.jpg

Image:Neuer Leuchtturm Borkum.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2008 at 17:10:50

•  Info created by Tola69 - uploaded by Tola69 - nominated by Tola69 -- Tola69 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tola69 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilted to the left --AlexanderKlink (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Poor angle and technical quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Alvesgaspar - Considering the subject, what angle would you have used? Ground level camera position? Crane? Helicopter? And what about the technical aspect? Is it exposure? Dynamic range? Lighting? Noise? ISO? Statements like "poor angle" and "technical quality" are so vague as esoteric. Those statements, in keeping with honorable critique practice, should be followed by an explanation that points to specific and relevant elements so as to be useful to the author and the reader, so people can learn from the experience. The lack of specificity is useless, it leaves nothing, it is sterile. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info - Considering the angle, the shot should have been made much further away from the building, IMO. As for the technical e quality, the image could and should be sharper -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Camera to subject distance is a valid point, which affects angle and it is valid from the personal preference point of view. If, however, we increase the camera to subject distance, sharpness decreases. Sacrifice sharpness for point of view or sacrifice point of view for sharpness? Image, in my opinion, is sharp enough, and ca be sharpened with photoshop to suit certain reproduction needs. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support in cause of the angle ;-) --Latzel (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support An interesting example of a lighthouse. Good lighting, exposure, DOF. Tilted a tiny bit to the left, author should correct this minor aspect. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Georgez (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Awkward perspective and not really sharp for a static object. Lycaon (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - angle --Avala (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)