Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier Express auf Landwasserviadukt.JPG

File:Glacier Express auf Landwasserviadukt.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2013 at 20:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier Express auf Landwasserviadukt.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier Express auf Landwasserviadukt.JPG

•  Info Glacier Express auf Landwasserviadukt c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support what a nice motive, composition and beautiful light. Congratulations! --Tuxyso (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful light! Though it would be better if there was a little more to the left. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Well caught! JKadavoor Jee 09:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 10:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Arcalino (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wonderful shot, but overexposed imo. Few areas of the train are not clipped in some channel, and it looks fixable in raw. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Julian H. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose We're missing something, it looks like a detail of a larger view. I'm afraid that the point a view wasn't that good. --Selbymay (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

wau wau, for this picture I took one days holiday, I drove 400km, climbed a tunnel and wait for the good light for 2 hours. That it is so miserable, I would not have thought so. I think I'm going to go there again ... :-( --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is far from being bad. Please do NOT consider to withdraw but wait for further opinions. IMHO some minor technical issues are overrated here. E.g. channel clipping is at least in the case here a pure technical issue - I guess no one could see it without a look on the RGB histogram. For me this shot is extraordinary good and the required effort underlines this. Point of view highly depend on the environmental conditions and is imho (already without your background information) also very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't evoke technical issues. I'm very sorry if this discussion doesn't award a long and hard work but the other existing FP (found herebelow by Jkadavoor) of the same bridge gives the answer to what I was missing. --Selbymay (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I still have the RAW and not cropped image in the original. Whom I can send? Maybe someone from the RAW file can still get something out. The subject is worth it to make it better. --Böhringer (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I later found this FP while trying to add this picture to Landwasser Viaduct. I didn't add this as I think that seems better at least in composition; but still maintaining the support. JKadavoor Jee 03:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the discovery, Jee! This pictures illustrates perfectly what I meant. --Selbymay (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Some adding of vibrance or saturation would be even better. --Mile (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support M49314 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose flat with the train totally out of depth--Pava (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others  B.p. 12:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)