Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpg

File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 09:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpg

•  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Stryn (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I like the refreshing composition. Tomer T (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment seems contrastless to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the "refreshing" composition. I hardly guess the subject is the falls, but I've to thank the title. Long exposition was a good idea I think, but it wasn't long enough in my opinion. Might be overexposed on the falls as this renders as a large bright stain. I'm also skeptical about the white parts of some rocks. What are they ? - Benh (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• removed "white parts rocks" part of my comment after cross checking with other pics. The framing really doesn't make justice to the beautiful place... - Benh (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Well in the raw processing I made sure nothing burned out to 255 white. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support If these waterfalls were commonplace I would have to oppose. However, it is a very unusual waterfall that is hard to reach, which I feel outdoes and quality problems. And rocks can be white. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Rocks can be white, but I was just wondering (hence the question mark) if this wasn't bad processing, because it looked weird to me. - Benh (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Question What do you mean by "hard to reach"? bamse (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• See the EnWiki article on this. Or maybe KOH took this from the road? Either way, we don't have many pictures of this place and it is very special and rare. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comparing with google maps it looks like being close to a highway. As far as I understand it is only difficult to get to the bottom of the falls or to the beach. bamse (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I admit the image had to "grow" on me a bit. I also struggled with the short long-exposure, but in the end, I like the creaminess of the waves. However, this image absolutely complements the other FA image on the article, which barely shows the falls or where it's coming from. I like how the image is "broken" into burnt umber and seagreen by the white foam. Unrelated to my vote, I didn't know about tidefalls, very cool. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose 'Long' exposure does not work for the waves. Compo also so-so. W.S. 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. -- Georgez (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural