Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crystal Mill, Colorado.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Crystal Mill, Colorado.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by John Fowler - uploaded by PDTillman - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 07:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice composition, good light and interesting motif. Who dares to enter the hut? Seems to be a fragile construction :-). But too much is blurred due to long time exposure and inappropriate aperture (f/5.6 is not suitable for a landscape image with foreground). The blurr is OK for the water, but almost all leaves, parts of the hut and mountains are blurred too. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice photo. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much blurred --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice place and composition, but oversaturated and not sharp enough. Some parts are too strongly denoised IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support (weak) I fully agree with Norbert, f5.6 was not a good choice but the compsosition and light justifys my pro vote. To the sharpness: IMHO sharpness has to be assessed with regard to the resolution. In the case here we have full size D800 resoultion. If you zoom out 2-3 steps in Firefox the water part and the house are incredible sharp. For me it is a bad habit to scale down and make an image "sharper" rather to leave it at sensor resolution. Although a photo looks sharper after downscaling you loose nonetheless information. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I like this picture very much. Especially, the light is amazing. However, as previously mentioned there are too many blurred parts due to the badly chosen aperture. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion Wow factor there is! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow! The quality is not too bad IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support (weak) It could be better technical wise • Richard • [®] • 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support /St1995 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose In this case I find the perspetive distortions disturbing, composition is really nice, though Poco2 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry
- Crystal Mill = compressor station = Places/Architecture/Industry? Jee 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)