Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snowy road Sosonka 2013 G1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Snowy road Sosonka 2013 G1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 17:29:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Nice snowy road scenery. --Laitche (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Ideal time of year to be reviewing this sort of image (at least in the Northern Hemisphere
). Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC) - Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but I entirely fail to see what’s supposed to be featured here. Nothing but a straightforward winter street, technically well done, QI, but no wow at all to me. Category:Forests_in_winter shows dozens of pics with more wow. --Kreuzschnabel 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm... I feel George is trying to take a good (or nice) photo but it's required wowed photo for the FP, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support, just a very small Wow.--XRay talk 10:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose nice place and image, but the snow have been a bit overexposed to my eyes, thus a very nice image but not fp IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 18:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly not overexposed. You can download this picture and draw a white line (ffffff color) in any graphic editor. Line could be visible in any almost white area. Also have a look to the histogram. -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- @George Chernilevsky: Maybe I'm wrong but from what I know the histogram show the edited version. You can decrease white and highlight levels as you want in the editing process thus the histogram will say ok. But It stay always a little details lost if there was an overexposition when taking the photo. It is possible to have an "ok" histogram with an image totaly blown. -- Christian Ferrer 06:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Histograms of edited version don't say if there is details lost when clicking on the camera to shoot the photo. Enough edited, 100% of the images of Commons can have a histigram ok, are they all FP? no. The mood is very nice here and the scene is pretty, but to my eyes have it been a bit overexposed? yes some few details, just a few I agree, are clearly lost despite of any histogram. -- Christian Ferrer 07:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Iotatau (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment If you don't mind would you please tell me which software did you use? (p.s. it's not a problem, without an embedded color profile. ) --Laitche (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- File "as is" from my Canon EOS 550D. Any software was not used -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- File "as is" from my Canon EOS 550D. Any software was not used -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice image, but it lacks wow for me. --Graphium 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow to me. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
