Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bodenseeregatta Rund um 2015.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Bodenseeregatta Rund um 2015.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 20:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info die "RUND UM 2015" Regatta im Sonnenuntergang am Bodensee c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Has wow for sure with nice golden colors, but I really find the image quality is dissapointing when looking just a bit closer (a 4 Mpixel preview). I do not quite understand the chosen camera setting. f/13 and ISO 320 @ 200 mm for a subject so far away? At f/9 you would still have DOF from 75m to infinity and then you could have chosen a much lower ISO and thus have reduced the noise. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger, though ISO 320 shouldn't really be noisy on a D800E. I can't accept a landscape photo can be FP at 4.4MP in 2015 with no justifying explanation. Sunsets really have to be both technically and artistically exceptional to reach FP, and this one is pretty like any sunset but not particularly original and the distant hills too indistinct. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. Pity to oppose this picture because it really has wow. -- Pofka (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
NeutralJump on the bandwagon support Noisy but great mood :) --Laitche (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)- Oppose Per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 10:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- weak support because of the colours and the mood, that's the only explanation. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Really a painting! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support I don't really understand the use of f/13 as well, but the noise level is fine for me – probably because it's mainly luminance noise. --El Grafo (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to @Böhringer: I changed to Natural phenomena because the highlight here is the sunset. Is there a problem? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- no problem, thanks --Böhringer (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Mark Rothko. พ.s. 06:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for my english. For me it is not so important whether with f / 13, the picture was taken. Primary is about the effect of me. This has been confirmed to me the many assumptions in the state championship and the TRIERENBERG Super Circuit. There no one asks about the EXIF data. Nevertheless, thanks for your comments. I take the criticism of happy because I can learn. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, many viewers would be very happy with a photo like this. I only looked at the EXIF after being a little dissapointed by the image quality and modest resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for my english. For me it is not so important whether with f / 13, the picture was taken. Primary is about the effect of me. This has been confirmed to me the many assumptions in the state championship and the TRIERENBERG Super Circuit. There no one asks about the EXIF data. Nevertheless, thanks for your comments. I take the criticism of happy because I can learn. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I hope neither Slaunger or I were guilty of reviewing the EXIF data rather than the photo! I don't think that is why either of us opposed. I don't think a 4MP landscape is feature-worthy in 2015, unless it was very original and amazing. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- What makes an image more than 20MB in 4MB to go on pixel search? The fact is that I find my best pictures without license information on the Internet for postcard printing, publications again in print media and other websites. Whether the image is original or grandiose decide the users. Your choice I respect equally. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Are you suggesting you limit your donations to Commons to 4MP in order to prevent people using them for postcards or websites? 4MP is plenty for a postcard or website, so don't really see why both limiting at all. Why not donate the 36MP your camera is capable of. If you want to only donate small pictures to Commons, that is your right, but I don't think they deserve FP then. -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- What makes an image more than 20MB in 4MB to go on pixel search? The fact is that I find my best pictures without license information on the Internet for postcard printing, publications again in print media and other websites. Whether the image is original or grandiose decide the users. Your choice I respect equally. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Guidelines for nominators
- Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level. --Böhringer (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nice image, but Colin is right about the resolution and your comment. You have to choose whether you want to sell you images or offer them to Commons. Personally, I am always happy and proud when my images are used elsewhere, even for commercial purposes. But I have chosen a long time ago not to sell my images. It is perfectly OK to expect a revenue for your work, but then it is incompatible with sharing them on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- You aren't saying anything we all don't knwo. That 2MP is the absolutely lowest limit. If this was a bird in flight then 4MP might be reasonable. For a landscape, no way. This is 2015. I don't know why you've started doing this because you used to nominate larger images like everyone else. The FP guidelines say "Images should not be downsampled". That's widely ignored provided the reduced-size image is still pretty large. But 4MP from a 36MP camera? Not reasonable. -- Colin (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- We all have that problem. I also find many of my pictures in the Internet without any license information and I take time to get that corrected. It usually works, but not always, and that is of course frustrating (would be great if the WMF would support us here). Still, I think that providing no content or less quality content is not the solution for the movement. If we all would do that, then soon we wouldn't have any FPs created by a Commonist. In fact, I will begin next week to upload 50 MP images to Commons, Poco2 13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena