Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:13-09-29-nordfriesisches-wattenmeer-RalfR-05.jpg

File:13-09-29-nordfriesisches-wattenmeer-RalfR-05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 10:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 10:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and very nice composition.--ArildV (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you delete the little thing at top in the middle please -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong lateral CA. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- its deleted. i don't knew, what this was...--Ralf Roleček 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess it was a hair from the photographer :) --Tuxyso (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Aerial photos are challenging and need complex image editing. I really appreciate your work at this field. But I am not overwhelmed by the detail quality of this shot. Some details on the island are gone by post-processing? I would add some notes to increase the EV of your shot with the names of the objects seen on the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont know how much more detail you would expect from this type of aerial photographs, it is a big island (35 kilometers from north to south) and the picture is taken with wide angle in order to (I guess) get the whole island. The composition gives the picture a very high EV imo.--ArildV (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The achievable level of detail is difficult to judge because we have only very few aerial photos at higher resolution - exactly for that reason I've voted with neutral. BTW: Is there a way to recursively go through a category e.g. Category:Aerial photographs of Germany and specify a minimum size and/or resolution? Educational value: I did not say that the EV of this shot is low - in contrary. I just made a suggestion how additional EV could be added. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are some high-resolution aerial photographs at Commons today; partly thanks to successful Wikimedia projects in Germany, Israel and Sweden (most Swedish pictures are for example taken with 24 and 15 mp cameras). But the Swedish pictures were taken from a helicopter at lower altitude (200 meters instead of 1000 meters). The detail level is lower compared with an existing FP, but if we take into account that this image is taken from a much higher altitude, and shows a much larger area, I think the picture is good enough.--ArildV (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurred Lines 14:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! Many things to be seen, I enjoyed it very much.--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a wow factor, technical quality is not great but acceptable IMO. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and catchy colors. Nice. --Selbymay (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition -- Colin (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.  Richard  [®]  18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Karelj (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mono 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support M49314 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 17:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places