Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seal Rocks and Point Bonita Lighthouse.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 00:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Info Please notice seagulls on the rock. The exposure time was 40/1 sec (40). and seagulls never moved :) Please also notice the bright ligth across the Bay. It is Point Bonita Lighthouse.
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really wish I was good a photography... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support A beauty out of this world. --Korall (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful pic, but not FP for me --Phyrexian (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please spell it out why in your opinion the image is not FP. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Low resolution for FP in my opinion, the rock is too small. Though is a very beautiful pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that right? Low resolution? Well, maybe it is my problem. After all the resolution of my image is only 2 times greater than the one you supported :-)--23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but IMHO is a different kind of pic, the seagulls and their rock are too small for me to be FP. It's just my opinion (and only mine I see :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. IMO your oppose reason for the resolution is very unfair and against the guidelines, and BTW the seagulls are extra. They not only provide a great scale for the rock, but also great EV. Who knew they would sit still for 40 seconds! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's an exaggeration to say the seagulls provide "great" EV. After all, you can barely see them in the picture. -- Petritap (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- They provide EV for two reasons: they are good for the scale and it is an interesting behavior (birds do not move much after sunset). What I am trying to say is that the image you supported is very beautiful, and I supported it too, but IMO my image has much bigger EV because of the seagulls as I explained above and because of the lighthouse.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that they´re barely visible doesn´t give any extra quality to the image, but it does give EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's an exaggeration to say the seagulls provide "great" EV. After all, you can barely see them in the picture. -- Petritap (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. IMO your oppose reason for the resolution is very unfair and against the guidelines, and BTW the seagulls are extra. They not only provide a great scale for the rock, but also great EV. Who knew they would sit still for 40 seconds! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but IMHO is a different kind of pic, the seagulls and their rock are too small for me to be FP. It's just my opinion (and only mine I see :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that right? Low resolution? Well, maybe it is my problem. After all the resolution of my image is only 2 times greater than the one you supported :-)--23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Low resolution for FP in my opinion, the rock is too small. Though is a very beautiful pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please spell it out why in your opinion the image is not FP. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Airwolf (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --NormanB (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support, I really, really like it. --Kjetil_r 00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as good as other "long exposure" -photos and I haven't supposed even the best photos of this type. —kallerna™ 10:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it.--Claus (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Looks unnatural for me, both for the colors and that strange 'aura'
- Question - Is it oversaturated? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not oversaturated. It is just a long exposure (40 seconds) that gives such colors. I am not sure what 'aura' you are talking about, but if it is the one around the rock, it is only slow motion sea w:foam from the crashing waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Per above. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Herby talk thyme 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- very unworldly Newman Luke (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena