Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpg

File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Braves6000 - uploaded by Braves6000 - nominated by Braves6000 -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~very beautiful but waaaaaaaay too small. Please upload a much larger file, ideally at full resolution -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)~~ per opposers below now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the metadata, the camera it was taken with is 24.3 megapixels. The original photograph should have a much larger resolution if you have a copy of it. WClarke (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a higher res verion Braves6000
FPX reason striked now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp, I can see now why it was downsampled. --cart-Talk 08:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose We are so used to rejecting sunsets (actually, as I've said before, this is a dusk, since the sun itself has already set, and I have so categorized it) out of hand for not being distinctive enough that it's a real shame when you see one like this which does stand out from the pack to have to reject it for the obvious flaw of being too unsharp.
I like that the photographer used a long exposure to bring out the color, but I'm a little curious as to why the aperture setting isn't recorded in the metadata, something that might explain whether the unsharpness was avoidable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]