Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dry Etosha Pan.jpg

File:Dry Etosha Pan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2012 at 00:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dry Etosha Pan.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dry Etosha Pan.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like the stripes and the position of the tree. However, two minor points. There appears to be something (a poly bag?) on the tree at the top right. If this is litter, it would be nice to erase it. Also the few branches at the far left centre are distracting. That big could be cropped out or cloned away IMO. --Colin (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Info It isn't a bag, it is a bird's nest on the top right on the tree :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The tones are very brownish and dark, and the tree is too small in the frame for the composition to work for me (though EXIF tell you likely were far away). Quality is also poor. Tree put aside, it pretty much VanGoghish. Because of refraction due to the heat ? - Benh (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question What are the bands behind exactly ? - Benh (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Info the bands: dry bottom of the lake, incl. salt-encrusted areas, dry loam areas. And yes, there were refractions due to the high heat = very shimmering and dusty air. The tone: small areas are burned out. Other grass areas are simply dry and parched. And a last a nice comparison with the most expensive photo --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure the comparison is good for you ;) - Benh (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Neutral -- The composition is okayish. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - nice composition. The tree reminds me of this. Quality isn't a big problem to me - probably best achievable considering the conditions and the equipment used. --Claritas (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• {{o}} Nice, but as Benh and what is really sharp at full resolution? The bottom of the image is to me a bit underexposed--Miguel Bugallo 01:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Miguel: if you ask me this really: "what is really sharp at full resolution?" then here my answer: except for the foreground, "simply all"! Do you read my comments? It is a 300mm telephoto shoot in a hot, very shimmering and dusty air! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, sorry. But is the ground dark? What do you think?, please. You can be sure of this: I like the image (sorry, poor english)--Miguel Bugallo 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Great! --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. But please take the half tree on the left border away. There is a bad crop. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Pretty compo, but very poor quality considering the conditions and the equipment used. พ.s. 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support i like it!Trongphu (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I only see a naked tree in a blurred environment. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right! The Etosha pan looks so! Please read my comments. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Sorry but the dof is too shallow, as a result of a poor exposure choice (imo). Why such a high shutter speed: automatic mode? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Alves, you asked me, I answer you: you don't understand this image too. For you again: it was hot, very shimmering and dusty air .... the DOF at f/8 is full OK for this shot. And this is an telephoto 300mm image. Think about it! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I already did, before posting my comment... What I don't like is the out-of-focus herbs nearer the camera and wonder if a larger f-number would solve the problem (even with a 300 mm telephoto). That is not for sure the result of the atmospheric conditions. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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