Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg

File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Kooritza -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The lit rock was facing the setting, low sun. That's why it is illuminated much more than the smaller rocks. No HDR processing, no filters were used.
Support -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vomirencostard (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice, and, moreover, multiuseful--MASHAUNIX 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly a FP --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose –strong oppose~~: usually I don't vote, but as I see that several persons already supported the picture (seems without taking a look at it...) I decided to point out a very obvious stitching error. There are also some weird behaviors in other areas imo I indicate as notes in the image. In addition, there is also a strange behavior of the lens which shows a pretty soft center with well sharp corners while it should be the opposite. I think this comes from the post-processing... Sting (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Kooritza (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Foreground stitching problem fixed, still the other points that are strange imo. Sting (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fix to the foreground stitching problem changed the image's dimensions, so that Sting's annotations are no longer visible to reviewers. The fixed version should have instead been added as an alternative, as in the current Svalbard nom for instance. --Avenue (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Sting. --Relic38 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture show rare illumination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Stellarkid (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rocks underexposed. Very unnatural.--Miguel Bugallo 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I hesitated a lot before voting because the atmosphere of the picture is nice but, at the same time, there was something beyond the quality flaws mentioned above that I didn't like. That is the unbalanced composition, due to the almost-square aspect ratio and the too imposing dark foreground. Maybe with a smart crop, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the original images was uploaded. This image is to be used as an example to justify the colors of this image. This image is not the one that was used to create the panorama.--Kooritza (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange sky, rigth and left corner are not in balance with nice middle - otherwise common result of using C-PL in wide angle. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There is a spot along the cliff edge, lower right, that goes fuzzy for no apparent reason; I've indicated where with a note. A patch of sea to its right also looks brighter than it should. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kooritza (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, now I'm Neutral (and I've removed my note). It's quite a striking image, and it's grown on me over the last couple of days, but I still share some of the concerns expressed above about the composition and the odd hazy patches, so can't support. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural, not very nice composition. Athyllis (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better version of an already great picture. This landscape is made of dreams, the picture is so inviting and inspiring. Coastside2 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable. Lycaon (talk)

lycaon:"I looked hard, but I could not find any stitching errors but because they are apparently "unavoidable" I'd better oppose." Is that so? D= DX--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lycaon, could you annotate the stitching errors that you found? I couldn't find any. If you can't, then I don't believe your reason for opposition is justified. LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the image. This version is better than the old one (dark area in the middle removed). Stitching is difficult for a moving image like this but I think the result is quite good. --BennyJ (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as Lycaon--Jebulon (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering the info "No HDR processing, no filters were used" this picture captures an unique mood of light and very nice cuirrus clouds, to me a great shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Lunau (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really special. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Luckymelon--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Something strange is going here, with a significant number of supporting users having created their accounts a short time ago and coming here for the first time. If this is what it looks like, I don't think Mbz1 needs such kind of help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just emailed user:Herbythyme and asked him to run CU on me and three "new" users, who supported the nomination. I explained to him that I have no idea how Jiujitsuguy and Luckymelon got to the nomination, and that I emailed to BennyJ and asked them to take a look at a better version of FP nomination after they supported a similar (worse) one on QI. I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and, if I used email, it was only because I was blocked at the time. Here's for example here's user:Yann

asked me to look at his FP nomination. There were other examples like this one too. BTW I am absolutely fine and insist on running CU on me and any user alvesgaspar wants to check, if for nothing else just to shot him up.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- I didn't accuse Mbz1 of anything and it never crossed my mind that she was involved in any kind of less ethical behaviour. Please read again what I wrote. As we all know there are other possibilities and the one I was thinking of was canvassing. Please let me clarify something else: the friends I have, or don't have, in Commons are my own business and I don't authorize anyone to comment on my personal relationships, whether they are real or just imagined. Please remove the comment above!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the grafiti spoils the scene. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If the graffiti was well cloned out well, and if the strangely-shaped haze in the upper right was corrected, I would love to vote for this. It is nicely shot with great lighting.LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a problem to clone out the graffiti, but then the image would get opposed for "improper digital manipulation". This image was really hard to take and even harder to post-process because I wanted to show the sky, the ocean and the rocks the way I saw them in real life, that beautiful and rare light and clouds, and I got it no matter that some users claim it is unnatural. It is natural and I could upload original images just from the camera to prove it by request. BTW could you please add a note for the haze you're talking about? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I annotated the top and bottoms of the haze I observed. Starting from the annotation point, The edge of the haze tapers steeply down the right, and starting from the left side of the note, the edge waves down to the surface of the below rock.LeavXC (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see, if it could be improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unbalanced brightness. Left side is too much darker than right side. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is how it was in a real life. Of course the sky has not even brightness all over, but thanks for your interesting input

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not real --Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Miguel Bugallo, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 11 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]