Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 18:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)- Info The image of course is much more about the wave than about the surfer.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)- Support To me it's more about the surfer - and that's what I like about it. Wolf (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent captured dynamic range. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support perfect --George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice! --NEURO ⇌ 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW This is one of the best image of surfing on commons, I think --Cesco77 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Impressive. I'd be interested to know the processing on this one. --Dschwen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The scene is very impressive, indeed, but I don't like the way the post-processing has been done here. The contrast is too high and doesn't look natural. Unrelated to my oppose, but again : downsampling. Pixel-size droplets of water can be seen here. Please upload the full resolution, everyone would benefit from it. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 08:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Overprocessed —kallerna™ 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Really an impressive and great shot....but again it got spoiled by post-processing. You really shouldn't try to "dramatize" your pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with that statement, there is clearly no point in making it :-). Apparently voters on commons dig dramatized pictures, so you cannot blame Mila for sexing up her shots. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you got a point there....it is the inconvenient truth. It is just always a pity to see all those good photos getting spoiled. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree with that statement, there is clearly no point in making it :-). Apparently voters on commons dig dramatized pictures, so you cannot blame Mila for sexing up her shots. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- GerardM (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration.
- As I said in the image's introduction, which I assume the user did not bother to read, the image is more about the wave than about the surfer. The "tiny surfer" is a very special bonus because he provides the scale for the wave. The image does illustrate the big, beutiful and special wave just fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I did, and I perceive the surfer not in the same way as you do ... GerardM (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, this picture looks artificial, the surfer is an unmistakable detail that is too tiny. I have imho valid reasons why I do not like this picture. I do not like it either. I oppose this for a FP GerardM (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I did, and I perceive the surfer not in the same way as you do ... GerardM (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - lovely image --Herby talk thyme 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW --Pudelek (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
