Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg

File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 08:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice picture with good quality. Perfect QI for me, but I´m missing something special for FP. --mathias K 09:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't see anything remarkable either photographically or in the subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have found apparently a new hobby? Giving the same cursorily argument on all my nomination. So it looks.--Wladyslaw (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It goes to the heart of why this not FP. It is a perfectly ordinary photo of a perfectly ordinary balloon, with no apparent attempt at artistic composition or spectacular technical achievement. In contrast, King of Hearts, I don't think "I think it is quite good" is a satisfactory reason to support an image that is supposed to be among our finest works -- have you looked at the category for balloons? -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support I think it is quite good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Per KoH. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI, but nothing outstanding here. --Ivar (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wlady, your other balloon image at least has context. This is just a balloon. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Question It is almost perfect technically. I would definitely support if the resolution is higher and the sharpness increased. Any chance? --Jordy Meow (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Higher Resolution? My camera has 16 MP and this image was not downsized, so no chance to get a higher resolution. But I wonder anyways what is the effort increasing the resolution? You want to make a ultra poster out of it? This picture was not sharpend in addition, IMO it's sharp enough. But I could for sure sharpen the image a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would increasing the resolution/sharpness make this more interesting? Remember this is supposed to be the "finest" on Commons, so a look at the category is a good idea. This is complicated by the fact that someone has over-categorised as is a frequent problem on Commons. But still, we have thousands of balloon photographs and many are equal to this in technical quality and lots are superior in terms of subject (not least, as Saffron points out, the other balloon picture by Wladyslaw). -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)