Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The riverside in the glow of the sunset.jpg

File:The riverside in the glow of the sunset.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:59:56

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very nice --Zakharii 13:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice colours in this lighting, but I'm sorry to say that the resolution, at only 1.5Mpixel, is against you on this one. (Also, the composition lacks focus.) There is something, though, about sunset light which gives interesting effects which are worth exploring. For example, New Forest pony. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Too bad about the pixels... else I find this an awesome picture (and I'm not sure why you'd compare it to that pony? This picture is quite a different league ^^) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pony was in poor light, maximum zoom, just trying out what the camera would do. My reference was not to the subject, but to the effects of sunset light creating a different set of effects. So on the pony, compare the shadow foreground in cold frost with the "on fire" background in setting sunlight. That's where the illustration of the light is. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I removed ianaré's FPX from this spot because it no longer applies: the image is of adequate size now. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I made an update of the image with 22,3428 megapixel and I added a geolocation tag to this image's info page. Please have a look on it.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, how about 2,2 mpx instead of 22,3428 mpx ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! It's a careless mistake.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful picture - Álvaro Morales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Álvaro Morales (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please sign your comments and votes by typing the following: --~~~~ You do not actually type out your own user name; the four tildes do that. Thanks! --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment in the new version you increased contrast, by doing this you lost quite some details in the pic. I recommend that you upload the original version with a higher resolution. The composition of the pic is nice. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the reasons given above I have to oppose. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info You say there is a loss of details in the pic because I increased contrast. But there are very small details like the sea of blossoms in many different colours. The high contrast is important for this pic. Let me explain. Please take the lowest resolution of your monitor and enlarge the file; that is the best way to see the pic in great detail. You see contrasting colours: red and green as a complementary pair and black and white (yellow, orange or green) as a light and dark contrast. This light and dark contrast is important for the image: it points the sunny light of the spring. The dark lattice from the trunks, branches and twigs between the light colours in the upper part of the image recollect me on paintings of Jackson Pollock like this. The lower part with the green gras and red reed and the golden reflections on the water remembers me on paintings with brushstrokes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a matter of taste. Either way, I also fall into the category of those who enjoyed the original colors. The colors now don't have the same easy and delicate charme anymore; they look loud and much less interesting to me. I can see your point that some painters use a similar technique and produce outstanding paintings... but anyways, for me the stronger colors don't work on this picture. If you could upload the high-resolution image with the more delicate colors, I'm still ready to support it. (If I shouldn't do that, please remind me on my user page. Thanks.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I would have supported if it was not of the (terrible) image quality of the grass --S23678 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)