Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Grib skov.jpg

Image:Grib skov.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Malene Thyssen - nominated by --Ikiwaner 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support perfect exposure, composition, nice colours under difficult conditions --Ikiwaner 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. If you look at the histogram you can easily see that there are many blown highlights within the leaves, and that that the trunk has no detail either as part of it is pure black. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Very nice. The brown-barked tree trunks in the foreground are Picea abies (Rødgran / Norway Spruce). - MPF 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment Funny thing, where are the leaves of the spruce, they should start not very far from the ground? And what leaves are these, beech leaves? - Alvesgaspar 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is one of the biggest forests in Denmark - called "Grib Skov". The trees in the pic are all very old beech (Fagus sylvatica). --Malene Thyssen 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      •  Comment The Picea abies have probably been high-pruned to increase the timber value (= no knots); all their branches are above the top of the picture. The main foliage in the front of the pic is on branches of two Fagus sylvatica trees behind the photographer (note the way the branches come in from the left and right edges); the middle ground is four Picea abies trunks (brown, scaly), then in the background are several more Fagus sylvatica trunks (smooth, silvery grey). I've been to Gribskov many times and know the mix of trees there very well (as well as being able to recognise the species in the photo!) - MPF 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You are right MPF - I had a closer look at one of my other pics from that day, the four tree trunks are indeed Picea abies :-) --Malene Thyssen 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportRomary 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Beatiful atmosphere, but looking at the details I don't think it is good enough for FP. A larger DOF is needed and the aspect ratio (almost a square) is not the best. I'm still puzzled with the leaves and trunks belongimg to different species... Alvesgaspar 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Despite all reasoning above, I am a huge lover of deciduous forests, and this image is a beautiful image of nature.--Vox Rationis 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Slightly overexposed to my eyes --Siebengang 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The leaves are severely overexposed and insufficient sharp (because of the wind or DOF? The trunks of the trees are sharp). I tried to make the shadows somewhat lighter and the highlights significantly darker. That makes it much better.--Wouterhagens 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed leaves. A pity, because I like the scene very much. Tbc 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don´t think, it is good enough for best pictures.--Karelj 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality not good enough to be featured. --Steevven1 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quite nice but I strongly dislike the editing that has been done to it. I like a good vignette like the next person, but this is not a very good vignette job. If you look at the crop, there's no way that the light change from 1 to 2 is natural, and it personally I don't like it very much. --Fir0002 www 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice forest. Hugo.arg 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support très beau et original Gérard Janot 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)