Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg

File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2010 at 23:22:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg

•  Info created by Many!! - edited by Mmxx - uploaded and nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Info This image is composite of 17 different images, explore it carefully and you will find many interesting things, besides putting this images together, I've also edited the background panorama to fit it to my requirements. (This is Commons world, when nobody notices them, Commons' images are having fun together )   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Some will probably object bu IMO this is a wonderfully created image. The only thing I would prefer edited is the reflection of the castle to the right which does not look as authentic as the original reflection beside it --Muhammad (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are right, for Egeskov Castle and Boat I used original reflections, so some of reflections looks different, but we can also say that they are caused by water movements.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Amazing, definitely deserves to be FP. Etincelles (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Weak Support At the first glance I thought nice image, good colors, but then - Wtf? - the earth at the horizon? Then all the other details ... Really strange. I think it's funny. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Very Strong Support - Fantastic, a great idea and you have pulled it off well--Pianoplonkers (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very original :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support great work, usefull for artikels like photomontage. --Fibix (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Couldn't you find a plane flying in the right direction so that you didn't have to reflect it and mess up all the text/logo? --99of9 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately no, this was the best thing I've found, I also had to reflect it because of light direction.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, IMO it could be done better, for instance that pineapple looks really odd. —kallerna™ 12:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do you see anything 'not odd' in this image? IMO this whole thing is odd.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yes :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Good idea and nice realization. Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting... --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose there is no point to these kind of images... GerardM (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work! -- MJJR (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Licensing issue (for example, File:Pineapple and cross section.jpg is under GFDL 1.2 only) and break of our guidelines (“Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable”). Oh, and that said, I see no point of viewing this photomontage featured. Diti the penguin — 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with license problem which I didn't noticed before, I can do one thing, I'll remove the "odd pineapple" I think other images are ok, only pineapple was licensed "GFDL 1.2 Only".   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sharpness isn't corrected. For example... there is some grass in the background not very sharp and a statue/building with much higher level of detail is placed on it. Also some parts of the montage does not look very convincing (radar, left part of the reddish castle, reflection of the POTY tower...) --Aktron (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, good idea, but it can be done more convincingly than this. The castle on the right appears to be hovering over the ground. --Aqwis (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Aqwis --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I just love this image - not sure it's a FP-image though... Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks everybody for your supports and constructive opposes, I've uploaded a new version and tried to fix some of mentioned problems.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO you've reflected a couple of items that should not be reflected. The Sydney Opera House is not symmetrical, so it doesn't seem right, and as commented before, the reflection messes up the text and logo on the airplane. My understanding of this image is that it is aiming for realism within a surreal rearrangement of objects. Impossible reflections mean you just miss the realism bar for me. I understand you've done them to make the lighting more consistent, but I think that means you just need to choose different images. --99of9 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment On the other hand, if you can get this just right, I'd say it will be one of the best advertisements we've got for free licenses encouraging creativity. Congratulations. --99of9 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Support --elemaki (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many objects. It destracts my focus. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)