Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lone Cypress 17-Mile Drive 2013.jpg

File:Lone Cypress 17-Mile Drive 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2013 at 17:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ralf Roleček 10:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like the image :) --Tuxyso (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit of distortion in the lower left corner but nowhere near enough to ruin the image overall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've visited this place earlier this year and I wish I had gotten a shot as good as this ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good composition, it's a pity that the quality is not a bit better --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian: Could you clarify what you mean by "quality"? If you mean resolution: My general impression is that we (nominators and reviewers) are a bit spoiled with high resolution images from modern sensors and stitching techniques. The photo at hand has a resolution of 7,3 megapixel (crop from a 16 MP photo) and is for the standard use-case more than sufficient. I see a certain danger that photographers with "average cameras" (the 16 MP sensor from my D7000 is not that bad) are deterred by such comments and are worried about nominating own images of FPC. IMHO the detail quality of the image here is not bad, you still see fine details on the green bushes. The background with the coastline is a bit foggy but this gives the image an interesting mood. -Tuxyso (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, I did not enough explain. The details of foregroud and in the backgroud are good enough and the fog is not a problem (for me it's an information for the weather of this place, and in more of to be valuable it " gives the image an interesting mood"). But I find the image so beautiful that it would have been exceptionel with more fines details on trees at left, on the rock at center and on the water just behind. So it is a pity that the quality is not a bit better. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M49314 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural