Very nice, especially with the moon, but seems there is a CCW tilt, doesn't (or isn't) it? --Carschten 22:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Comment Right, I uploaded new version --Pudelek 12:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Good, but shame of the trash bin (remove it from the photo is an interesting challenge!). What is the orange thing? --Jebulon 17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the image quality - seems a bit noisy and blocky. Mattbuck 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Comment Isn't noisy --Pudelek 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Good perspective. Nice (I mean: the girl at left is nice)--Jebulon 18:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Neum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Support I think this one is better because it isn't dominated by a single hotel/resort. I geocoded the alternative, which is very good in other respects. Walter Siegmund(talk) 17:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Very good and very informative photo. I tend to support but still have some hesitation about this one: . But Most important thing here is that the village of the same name exists in Croatia so I think the scope should be Počitelj, Bosnia and Herzegovina.--MrPanyGoff 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Right - ----
Scope changed from Počitelj to Počitelj, Bosnia and Hercegovina --Pudelek (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Now I Support it as the best in the scope. It gives the most informative view of the village. And the village itself deserves its own scope because of its rich history which can be ascertained here.--MrPanyGoff 11:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
A bit hazy and the levels are slightly probably off, but it's good. Not sure about the flag though, I know that on FPC they aren't considered neutral, but, if allowable... --IdLoveOne 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I get conflicting signals from the verticals, but the horizon is tilted slightly CCW. There's a distracting white triangle poking above the roof on the left edge, which could be cropped away. --Avenue 12:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Info I uploaded a new version --Pudelek 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The other three sides feel a bit tightly cropped, but since the subject here is the wall, not the coastline or the houses, I think it's fine. Nice light. --Avenue 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
* Would be better with a little more contrast and a bit darker imo --Mbdortmund 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Info Now it's new version --Pudelek 11:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Its much better now. --Jovianeye 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The sunlight is rather overexposed, but I like it. More opinions? Mattbuck 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The same as yours...--Jebulon 11:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)I like it, too. --Mbdortmund 01:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment good, but the chromatic aberrations need a fixing --Carschten 08:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Comment where is CA? I don't see --Pudelek 10:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I made annotations --Carschten 12:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks --Pudelek 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Support better now (not perfect), but it's good enough for QI imo --Carschten 09:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The left side of the ribbon is overexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Agree, a bit. But encyclopaedically useful and technically QI nevertheless IMO--Jebulon 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For first reaching the amazing number of 500 (five hundred!) quality images, I hereby this Quality Image Barnstar to Pudelek. Thank you for the relevant services! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The second with 500 QI pays homage to the first one !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
i want to inform you, i will use some of your photos from Slovakia to the new Czech website www.vyletnaslovensko.cz (it means "trip to slovakia"). This site is for turist. It´s provider of accomodation, services and info site. I will use sign "foto: Pudelek" to every picture. Now i want to use some of the pictures from Blatnica, Strecno, Turcianske Teplice and Zilina. In the future i will use some pictures from other categories.
Thank you so much i hope you will not angry! Best regeards Ondrej firstname.lastname@example.org