Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suru Bog.jpg

File:Suru Bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 22:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas Haljaste - uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Urmas Haljaste -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Amazing pic. --P e z i (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice composition but poor image quality, far from the present FP standards. There is nothing sharp in this picture. The difference to this other present nomination is amazing. I just don't understand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure but it seems to me that the other picture you are referring to is captured with a medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, but Richard's camera used to be a full frame Canon with less resolution than the Nikon D800.
  - Look at the metadata. It is medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Was this picture upsampled from the previously uploaded one? That would explain the strong blur. Incidentally, the vertical dimension of this image is larger than the width of a D800 photo. No theory of conspiracy here, just a genuine curiosity in understanding why the image is so blurred. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not upsampled. And the vertical dimension I cannot explain. It happens when the pictures are merged together so I blame Photoshop. It merger them together again and now there are even more pixels. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit overcooked and no wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No wow? Really? And recall that this is 112 MP; if downsampled 50%, this would be tack-sharp and still 28 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. (thumb is nice) --Kikos (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, when I open an FP at full size I just expect sharpness, it definitely needs a rework Poc o² 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must say that I just love the contradicting opinions. I uploaded a new version, a little sharper but I think I still won't convince my friends who believe in contrast/sharpness/clarity. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, nice at low resolution but at full there is a lack of quality IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I should stay to low resolution then. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]