Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dream Pool.jpg

File:Dream Pool.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 17:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ian Sane - uploaded by Mono - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Mono 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sharpness and fine detail is lacking, but the overall composition and artistic effect makes up imo. Long exposure probably has something to do with this. —Mono 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but low quality (maybe some kind of bad nd-filter?). And I'm not very fond of the composition, foreground and backgroynd competes for attention.--ArildV (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Earth'sbuddy (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—per ArildV—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the composition, but I don't get it, why aperture f/22? (lens diffraction issues) --Ivar (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- f/22 is probably just the logical consequence of the long exposure time that was used in order to make the waterfall look the way it does (ISO is already down to 100, so that was probably necessary to avoid overexposure). Sadly, this leads to everything but the waterfall looking rather strange – but (imho) not strange enough to be considered "artistic" → Oppose. I somehow like the composition and the colors though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something strange happened here, the colour channel is completely blurred as if a way too strong colour-noise reduction was done. It's clearly not only an exposure problem because the brightness is a lot sharper, that doesn't happen in-camera. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —Mono 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]