Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Moraca, norte de Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 09.JPG

File:Río Moraca, norte de Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 09.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2014 at 22:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Río Moraca, norte de Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 09.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Moraca, norte de Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 09.JPG

9

260

4104

2519

4123

2789

better crop?!

19

1078

74

214

4123

2789

power towers

84

1831

111

158

4123

2789

rubber piece

84

2082

204

149

4123

2789

green pillow and aluminum profile

3538

2371

176

260

4123

2789

black tube

•  Info Morača river, near the road from Podgorica to Serbia, Montenegro. The river is the most relevant one in Podgorica, capital of Montenegro. All by me, Poco² 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral I noticed also a better? crop. Please think about it. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Alchemist-hp: I followed your advice and  cropped it Poco² 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  OK, now  Support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Nice. I would remove the green pillow, the profile of aluminum, the rubber piece and black tube(marked), are not important disturbances but do not help. The four power towers on the right, should lose the contrast selectively, because they seem a reflection stripe IMO. The Alchemist-hp crop suggestion is good. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 16:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not sure what you expect. Do you want me to clone all that out? Poco² 20:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I do not expect, is only a suggestion(always are suggestions) to clone, are not relevant elements (IMO). But if you prefer the realistic per Hubertl, np for my: "are not important".  ; ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks, I am not sure, though about it. I can easily get rid of that but if posible I'd avoid this kind of editing. Maybe we hear more opinions. Poco² 21:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support nice, even (or especially) the rubbish is pretty realistic.--Hubertl (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Graphium 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think the weather was not in your favor, the brightness is not the best causing opaque colors. Additionaly bushes hide part of the river bed would have been more interesting a view from a higher place. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I can say that I enjoy very much this kind of weather for this kind of photography, and there was no physical way to take the picture from a higher POV Poco² 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are physicals ways, the problem is the expensive price --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilfredo, do you really suggest that in my photographic tours I take a truck with an elevator instead of a normal rental car? :S Poco² 11:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was joking, but this seems a real and economic alternative. Especially for wildlife pictures --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an option, either. The only thing I can think of is a reliable and robust drone to transport a big camera. Poco² 15:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --.snoopy. 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Im. / Fav.} 07:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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