Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg

File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 03:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy morning on Stow Lake.jpg

•  Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strong tilt. -- H005 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the angle this was taken at. kind of like looking upstream. Julielangford (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose too tilted --kaʁstn 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like, but have a strong tilt.--Econt (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The tilt is fixed. If you believe it is still present please tell me what side and how many degrees I should turn it. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose The composition doesn't work for me. There are 2 focal points, the waterfall and the small temple, each at an end of the panorama, with darker trees inbetween. Each of the focal points seems to have insufficient breathing space on their right (resp. left). It almost looks like the projector got stuck between 2 slides... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Tilt successfully removed. It's a very nice subject, makes me wish I was there, however I'm not sure whether there's enough wow for an FP - I think the composition is not ideal, too much water and to little of the trees and sky above the waterfall and pagoda. -- H005 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you voted two times now.I did not want to cut off the reflection of the pagoda. So I believe there is just enough water to show the reflection.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I stroke through my original vote but then ran into an edit conflict with Maurilbert, and forgot to strike it through again when I fixed that. Done now.

And reading Maurilbert's comment now, I believe he's right, it's probably the distance between the objects and the too little space to their left and right that doesn't appeal me, anyway, something just feels wrong when I look at it, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I would only like to repeat one more time that I could not do less of the water in order not to cut off the pagoda's reflection and I could not do more of the sky because there was not much of the sky anyway only the fog.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- Yiyi (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The colors is not good (for me).--Claus (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The dynamic range of the scene is simply too much for a standard shot (compare the bright upper left corner with the dark center). This could make for a fantastic HDR image, but as it is the picture looks a little dull. -- JovanCormac 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Agree on the poor composition and dull lighting. Also, the image is not sharp (high ISO noise?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ISO was 100. It was very, very foggy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)