Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 05:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
- Info All Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - What a cheerful, bright photo! The only thing short of perfection I see is perhaps just a touch of noise in the sky at full size, but I don't really care. The reflections on the water are gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Question Any use of tight crop at sides ? --Mile (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised by the size of the boat, I came with the prime 35mm lens, I applied a small perspective correction and this is the bigger size I can give. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support You might try simple panorama, handheld, two shot then stitch. Just lock settings to be same. --Mile (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)re
- Yes indeed, I have not had the idea to do this... Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support You might try simple panorama, handheld, two shot then stitch. Just lock settings to be same. --Mile (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)re
- Support crystal clear picture of a piece of ugliness! This ship is a candidate for the hall of shame. But maybe just in my humble opinion. --Hubertl 12:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Info I must say that the bright effect here comes from the use of a UV filter, this one, this is also why I had chosen the 35mm lens despite the size of the ship, as my 14-24mm accepts no filter. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It’s impressively sharp and rich in detail, yet the tight side crop does not appeal to me. So, it’s just a ship, no idea beyond the plain rendering (if only I could see the wide sea it’s going for! Oh, and I agree with Hubertl about its lack of beauty). Some pixelisation on the right side (look at the letters of the name), maybe due to your perspective correction. I rather tend to oppose in spite of the technical qualities and high resolution.
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding capture of an ordinary subject. The dominance of the white and blue throughout the image makes for a strong motif. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good image. (Crop could be better left and right.) --XRay talk 10:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ideally, one would have liked to see some way of compensating for the necessarily short exposure that left the clouds a little darker than they would naturally be. But ... that's a quibble, and this picture easily clears the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport