Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg

Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg edit

original - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. I really enjoy looking at it --Leafnode 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the original one. Great job! --Manco Capac 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes, at the end of the day, colors and light are just like that and that's what is great. --B.navez 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary Oppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood and atmosphere. I trust the creators statement that the colors in the original best resembles how it really was. -- Slaunger 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original has a low dynamic range and I don't like the contrast. Unfortunatley, the first edit eliminates this together with it's warm evening atmosphere. Maybe a second edit keeping its original colour temperature would enhance the picture's quality, but in general, a suitable candidate... --Taraxacum 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad contrast --Herrick 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one the best out of the three. I find the colours natural. Popperipopp 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colours of this one give it all its charm. Colours don't seem natural on first edit, and there is too much light on the two edits. Fred waldron 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, odd colour cast, even if it's natural. --Aqwis 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late... -- Alvesgaspar 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1 - not featured edit

Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. /Daniel78 10:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ have to rethink --norro 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This edit copleteley changed the photo. In the original version the day light is close to a rainy day and wich is great with the colors of the dress of the lady. But in the edited version it is a sunny day and I didi not liked the colors in that way. --Manco Capac 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artificial change of colors --B.navez 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The moody atmosphere in the original is lost for me. -- Slaunger 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it was said, colors are unrealistic now --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit 2 - not featured edit

Question What is your opinion to this version? --Taraxacum 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one works for me too. -- Slaunger 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is also fine for me. --Manco Capac 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ALL versions. Not enough wow, aesthetically not very strong, and I do not like the tree in the background (composition). Barabas 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - Sorry, but each nominations has its own poll. The vote only counts for this one -- Alvesgaspar 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]