Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg

File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoeverything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above too. Composition is poor. --Korman (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]