Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Đurđevića Tara.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Đurđevića Tara.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 13:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Followyourheartmarkomaodus - uploaded by Followyourheartmarkomaodus - nominated by Ivan_VA; Photo of a bridge in northern Montenegro, built from 1937. to 1940. across the Tara river canyon. The pic is not mine, kinda found it here, while gathering info for the article about it. It's my pirst pic to nominate here, tho :) Btw, just saw that there are no bridge pics from Montenegro in the featured category, so sorry for the lack of specification. -- Ivan VA (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ivan VA (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is stunning light and I was ready to support, but the 3.8 MP resolution is very small for a landscape and sharpness as well as detail is lacking. Minor Chromatic abberations (CA) on the bridge supports. If this was downscaled (and maybe otherwise altered), the original photo would be much more appreciated to judge the quality more fairly and accurately. Maybe the original is much better than what this version makes it look like. J_budissin, are you the photographer? – LucasT 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, i myself saw the same -technological- lack u did, but i never than less, nominated it. I guess, we can't alter photos just because camera technology improves every year. People just have to take/get used to the fact that all photos can't be hd and that early 00' photos are as much appreciated. Anyway, that's my view. Tnx for the vote tho :) --Ivan VA (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you know the photo was taken in the early 2000s, then that info belongs on the file page and in your comment on the top of this nomination. – LucasT 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, i've expressed myself badly. I meant the camera was probably from the early 00's, not the photo. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture is very beautiful, and you clearly have a good eye visually for what makes an FP. However, as per Lucas, the size and quality is not that good for a landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: Would it make any difference if i'd change category/nominate it for an other category (where resolution doesn't matter that much)? --Ivan VA (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't think it really would. The picture is still the same picture, whatever category you nominate it for. Whether you put it in the landscape category or not, it still is a landscape, and for a picture that is relatively easy to take (unlike, for example, a macro shot that might be more technically challenging), I don't think the resolution is good enough. Cmao20 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others --BoothSift 01:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small with perspective issues (verticals are not straight) --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Clearly tilted, CA visible, wrong white balance, far too small Poco2 15:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
