Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junquillal beach gaendalf 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Junquillal beach gaendalf 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 23:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Gaendalf - uploaded by Gaendalf - nominated by Gaendalf -- Gaendalf (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Gaendalf (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the composition is a bit dull, and the rocks in the foreground look badly posterized. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment In my humble opinion, the picture's composition is according with the Rule of Thirds, what makes it special is the figure produced by the waves crashing against the rocks and the time of the day at which it was shot with the moon in the sky and a nice natural colors. --Gaendalf (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Per THFSW, oil painting look, and overall very poor quality. What kind of NR or artistic filter was applied ?? Composition not to my tastes with too much room given to the sky (subjective issue, not my main raison for opposing). - Benh (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Polarizing filter at dawn and at the specific degree of rotation of the filter creates this looks. --Gaendalf (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was talking about the digital filter you applied with image manipulation soft ;) The bottom part has more color blotches (sorry for the poor english) than details (Noise Reduction ?) - Benh (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I get what you are referring to. And you're right about it, this color "blotches" or posterization of the bottom section of the image was probably caused by an inappropriate tunning of both sharpness and noise reduction. Any filter was applied. I incorrectly manipulated this parameters in posprocessing. --Gaendalf (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely a Quality Image, but it is just not outstanding enough to be an FP, in my opinion. --TFCforever (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition - too much sky, to few of that thing on the bottom, sry. --Aktron (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Remember the Rule of Thirds, there are almost 2/3 of sky and 1/3 of sea. IMO there's no composition problem, having 1/2 and 1/2 would make the picture boring and having more sea than land would imply to lose the moon in the composition. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Because I want to crop it, frame it and put it in my bathroom. =) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good mirror symetry and sky-reflection in the sea.--Snaevar (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is not well balanced.. too much sky. Ggia (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The moon wouldn't appropriately fit in the picture if there wasn't so much sky. It maintains the Rule of Thirds: 1/3 of sea and 2/3 of sky. --Gaendalf (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It looks closer to 1/2. The Moon is so minor in this. What about cropping the image down to 2/3 sea 1/3 sky? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - small illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
