Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New norcia gnangarra 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:New norcia gnangarra 1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2010 at 05:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra 05:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Gnangarra 05:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment It would be good if distortion fixed and metafile presented. --Mile (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- hadnt noticed the metadata missing, will redo from raw file.....Gnangarra 11:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It looks nice as thumbnail, but there are too many artifacts visible in full res — the picture looks pixelated. Looks like it's saved as a low quality jpg. --Lošmi (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support It doesn't look to good at full res, but the composition and lighting are too good to vote oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose what a nice picture (see The High Fin Sperm Whale) but for the reason for opposing see Lošmi --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)- Support I really like it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Quite lot of CA. —kallerna™ 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I just changed the size of the alt version a little, to make more obvious it´s there :) Nikopol (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support The alt version. CA still there and I liked the lower crop of the old version better, but now the artifacts are gone and lighting + colors are nice. Nikopol (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --LadyofHats (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of low quality artifacts. Sorry, this is a really nice shot, but the quality is even insufficient for a Quality Image. I have to oppose. See also my image annotations for original and alt version. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
QuestionI like composition also, but i saw in the beggining that cross, which is poor quality. May I ask which lens have You used ? I see it has big problem at 18mm...always try to avoid beggining and end of focal length since every lens is worst at borders. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've had no issues with the lens, it was taken with 18-50mm lens using a circular polariser filter at 11:35am shade temperature was ~42C(107F), most of whats being called CA and artifacts is more likely the result of radiant heat. Gnangarra 13:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support I was wondering was it too high compresion or lens, it seems combo of lens and high temperature lost some sharpness. But i guess i am gonna vote for because i like the photo. Good framing. --Mile (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs more space to bottom, CA. —kallerna™ 14:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support But a little more foreground would be nice. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --High Contrast (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support But knowing the location very well, the angle and the clouds do nothing for me, the tower is a feature that is lost with the clouds around it SatuSuro (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
The chosen alternative is: File:New_norcia_gnangarra_1_v2.jpg
