Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2131-7.jpg

File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2131-7.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 05:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2131-7.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2131-7.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 05:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice handling of the sky gradients. At 100% I see some odd effects round some tree branches, perhaps from movement during your HDR exposures. But at 30MP those are invisible when viewed normally. I'm a bit puzzled about the data in the "Technical Specifications" field on the page. Not sure what DPI and MiB have anything to do with how the image was generated. I'd rather see what set of exposures were made (e.g., this page). -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Generating the HDRI Photomatix (MacOS) lost some, not all EXIF data. I don't know why. I've added the important data from the normal exposure with exiftool. And the view of 100 Percent: I tried some different methods, the used one was the best with very minor disadvantages. And a last information: The technical specifications are generated by a bot. A manual update would be terrible. My bot hasn't fixed this yet, but it will be done within the next weeks. The size and DPI is a hint for the user about the possible dimensions - as part of the image data, not the technical specification. --XRay ^talk 09:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - The light, mist and vivid colors are magical and make any small imperfection trail off into insignificance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Would appreciate if the CA/color displacement/whatever on the left side could be fixed though. --Cart (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I'll try to fix it within the next days. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 11:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Great. -- -donald- (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Interesting to note that on the cablecar nomination here we have seven supports from ArionEstar, Ikan Kekek, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case, W.carter and Мирослав Видрак. If we resize that image to the same resolution as this one, it looks like this. And we'd probably oppose for the unacceptable level of noise, the ghosting on the wires against the sky and the sharpening halo round the mountain. If we resize this image to the same resolution as that one, it looks like this. And we'd get probably support with "Small but pretty breathtaking" and "Nice and sharp". I know upsizing isn't a fair test, and I know nobody has opposed this one (yet), and I know it would be nice if the artefacts here are fixed [if the trees have moved during the exposures, this might be hard]. But this one has nearly 8x more pixels to peep at, and enjoy from a suitable viewing distance! -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Colin: As you may have noticed, I support this as it is, fixing some minor tech problems is only a bonus of possible. My support is not hinging in that. Sometimes you worry too much. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cart, actually I think your "support but appreciate a fix" here is definitely the best way to comment on this nomination. It's more the rapid and uncritical supports of a 3.8MP nomination. If this one was 3.8MP then nobody would see any artefacts, though XRay would get some grief about downsizing, because he's a regular. What are we doing nominating 3.8MP landscapes in 2018 anyway? This isn't hypothetical "worrying": these are actual nominations and 50% downsizing is actually getting a free pass by seven reviewers. Some of these same reviewers, maybe not you, really do pixel peep the 30MP images to death. But a 3.8 image is "nice and sharp". *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why did you decide to post a gratuitous insult or snide remark or whatever in a thread where it isn't even relevant? If you have a complaint about a review by me, complain in the relevant thread. I always consider photos case by case and will be happy to consider specific points, but not general carping, especially since you specifically addressed me months ago in my user talk page and I paid a lot of attention to what you said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ikan I'll respond on your talk page. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support as is. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one and have noted Colin's comments. We should be alert to downsizing. Perhaps the size guidelines could be updated for those images where cropping is never needed? -- Charlesjsharp 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support As often with Dietmar a wonderful light. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Colin, -donald-, and W.carter: (Green) CAs are fixed. It's not an easy task because of a lot of green. I've checked the image and CAs are (nearly) only removed top left at the branches. I didn't found magenta CAs. I think, the removal of green CAs wasn't good enough before. --XRay ^talk 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral I stared now for roughly 20 Minutes on your picture and tried to figure out why I do not like it. The light is amazing, the HDR process is well controlled and as good as you can get it reasonably with nature and wind. I think my problem is the composition, where the sun is slightly off center (but only as little that it does not seem deliberately) while the two trees framing it both miss their crown... I think I would have preferred the picture either with less of the foliage in the foreground slightly tilted upwards OR a portrait orientation. --C-M (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Good job but the CA (green/pink) should be removed Poco² 18:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Colin, Martin Falbisoner, Ikan Kekek, W.carter, -donald-, and P999: @Daniel Case, Charlesjsharp, Christian Ferrer, C-M, and Poco a poco: I started and uploaded a redevelopment (alternative) to remove CAs and solve some minor issues. I didn't found another way to solve the issues with the CAs. --XRay ^talk 05:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment - I really prefer the former version and have struck my support vote. Could we possibly have two alternatives, the previous version and this one, which I consider pretty radically different? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Now back to the former one with minor improvements. And there is the alternative. --XRay ^talk 07:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Support vote reinstated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Now here is an interesting thing, from what I can see (I can be wrong) by now this should have been closed by the Bot as a fifth day closing as featured. If so this is probably prevented by the presence of an alt version. It will be interesting to see what will happen with Basile's nomination above this where I commented out the withdrawn alt version. It could be due for a fifth day closing too, hopefully the bot will fix it then. --Cart (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall that bots don't close nominations with alts, as it can sometimes be hard to tell who voted for what. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, so should we close this one manually then? This one has no 'oppose' anywhere. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cart I think so. The only reason I'd delay was if it was in any doubt if the alt might "win" if left for the full duration. I don't think that's the case here. -- Colin (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. An easy task. I withdraw the alternative. --XRay ^talk 15:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• XRay, you can't put the 'withdraw' template anywhere on a nom, it will cover both the noms. I have striked it for you. The only way is probably to comment out the alt as was done on Basile's bug nom. I will fix that + closing it in a separate edit. Don't touch anything here in the meantime. --Cart (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed Ok, lesson learned here: Alts will not only perhaps split the votes and result in a 'not featured' it will also prolong the time of the nom and make things with the closing more complicated than necessary. --Cart (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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