Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Head Lighthouse Ocean Horizontal.JPG
File:Portland Head Lighthouse Ocean Horizontal.JPG, not featured
edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 16:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man -- -- Ram-Man 16:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Support One of the most iconic light houses in the world. There are two lighthouses in this picture. -- Ram-Man 16:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)- Support - This is a great picture. I can almost smell the salty air. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support
Oppose after checking the quality issues pointed out by Pine, I have to revise my judgement. Its a well composed photo, but for me a FP has to have the technical quality as well. -- Rftblr (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose if you like, but do you really want the technical requirements for a FP to be "DSLR" + "High End Lens"? I do have much higher quality lenses in my bag, but nothing at 22mm. I'm all for demanding high quality images, but this goes beyond photographer skill. Obviously I could crop out the foreground, but you'd lose some compositional wow in favor of a minor technical fault that is hardly noticeable unless you are really looking for it or viewing at very large magnifications. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment It's not about requiring a DSLR + High End Lens. Even with the lens you had, you could have shot multiple images without tripod, turning around the lens (and not the head) and stitched a high-quality wide angle-equivalent. Especially in landscape photography I like to zoom in and look around the photo: I emulate what I would be doing if I were at the place, to get a feel for the scenery. Landscape photographers have always used very high resolution and high quality cameras to achieve this feeling of being there. Nowadays we are lucky since we can use the computer to stitch a high-quality landscape image from multiple lower resoultion shots. For me this quality difference distinguishes landscape photography from snap-shot/travel photography, coinciding with the criterion for FP. -- Rftblr (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I can respect that. Thank you for your explanation. -- Ram-Man 12:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Good composition, but unfortunately slightly unsharp (and I think brightness can be raised a bit). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- Support − Meiræ 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- weak support I don't like the low part (crop?) --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition but big problems with sharpness, especially on the lower left. --Pine✉ 06:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Corner softness is a well known issue with the lens. See here. Also the glass isn't really capable of 16MP work of sharpness across the frame, but I think it turned out extremely well given the limitations. Even the ducks in the water are reasonably clear. -- Ram-Man 11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Nice composition! --Laitche (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I took many different angles and positions and this was my favorite because it highlighted the lighthouse(s) and the ocean together. -- Ram-Man 11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I really like the composition and it's an interesting subject but the quality is not at FP level. It's a little bit too dark and vey soft overall. An oppose would seem too harsh to me but I can't really support it, either. --Code (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Very weak regretful oppose It's a great composition. But in addition to the issues pointed out by Pine and Code, I feel its WB is a bit too cool. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
