Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Smoky Hills Wind Farm.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Smoky Hills Wind Farm.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 03:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Drenaline - uploaded by Drenaline - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support -- I think is a very good composition, with all elements expressing the energy of the wind. --Elekhh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose So do I, but it's extremely noisy, in particular when you consider the lighting conditions. Maybe you can do something about that. -- H005 12:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition but the too much "art-filtered" foreground is really distracting! Imo would be close to FPX cause of the "manipulation" at the picture. --mathias K 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The image was strongly tilted when uploaded (see previous version), which made me believe that it wasn't "manipulated" other than using certain camera settings. --Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed the tild. But the way the pic looks is definitely not by certain camera settings. The cam was a Canon eos Rebel xti and this pic was imo photoshopped with some kind of art-filter like "old-photo" for example. --mathias K 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think so. Maybe saturation and/or contrast have been increased a bit, but if someone had really done some non-standard manipulation why shouldn't he also fix noise and tilt? These two were the most obvious flaws in the first version. H005
20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) - Furthermore, the description states that the view is from the highway, and if it was taken from a slow moving vehicle that would explain the "artistic" blur of the forground. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think so. Maybe saturation and/or contrast have been increased a bit, but if someone had really done some non-standard manipulation why shouldn't he also fix noise and tilt? These two were the most obvious flaws in the first version. H005
- I noticed the tild. But the way the pic looks is definitely not by certain camera settings. The cam was a Canon eos Rebel xti and this pic was imo photoshopped with some kind of art-filter like "old-photo" for example. --mathias K 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The image was strongly tilted when uploaded (see previous version), which made me believe that it wasn't "manipulated" other than using certain camera settings. --Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
