Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jan mayen egg-oeja hg.jpg

File:Jan mayen egg-oeja hg.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:53:49

•  Info created by Hannes Grobe - uploaded by Hannes Grobe - nominated by Zakharii -- Zakharii 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Zakharii 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the sky is blown. MER-C 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is a beautiful landscape, with good photographic technique. The DOF is extraordinary and the photograph has good texture, proportion, balance and good tonal range. The fact that the sky is blown is really not so, it is a bright, cloudy day which paradoxically, makes the lighting work for the picture. The clouds act as a huge soft box. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong support I agree with Tomascastelazo. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The sky could be cut off a bit.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment the logs are also overexposed --ianaré (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - A gorgeous composition is not enough especially when the obvious technical flaws would have been easy to avoid. Besides the blown sky and foreground we also have a tilted horizon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not a blown sky, clouds are white... and it is a cloudy day. Any adjustment on the levels would render the sky gray, not blue. As far as the horizon: 1) Sand on beaches tends to have a slope, so to judge a horizon on a sand line is erroneous most of the time, and I think this is one such case. 2) By analyzing the cliff, there are visual clues such as the drips that fall according to the laws of gravity, that is, straight down. There are visual clues that suggest a correct orientation of the image, so no tilt. 3) This image, if it were a black and white, (which almost is) is a rich study in textures and middle and dark tones, with elements in the high values (wood) nicely represented and within the texture range (hitting Zone IX, which in turn tells about the luminosity difference between this and the sky). So again, any adjustments in the high values would tend to squash the tones... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. —kallerna™ 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sky is white. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment sky is blue, clouds are white... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- this is the high-latitudes & the sky looks different up there, sometimes. there is more white/solidity in the clouds; ice crystals rather than water vapour, remember. i think the sky looks fine & the rest of the composition is wonderful. worst case, tone down the sky a bit to please the critics; but not every picture has to have a pretty-perfect blue sky, & this one shouldn't Lx 121 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose even if that cloud is white doesn't mean it's not overexposed. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment --hence my suggestion to tone down the sky a little. no offense, but the sky pretty clearly is not the main subject of this picture, nor what makes it worthy or unworthy of FP. Lx 121 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)