Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg

File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 05:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a cheerful, bright photo! The only thing short of perfection I see is perhaps just a touch of noise in the sky at full size, but I don't really care. The reflections on the water are gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any use of tight crop at sides ? --Mile (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by the size of the boat, I came with the prime 35mm lens, I applied a small perspective correction and this is the bigger size I can give. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support You might try simple panorama, handheld, two shot then stitch. Just lock settings to be same. --Mile (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)re[reply]

Yes indeed, I have not had the idea to do this... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support crystal clear picture of a piece of ugliness! This ship is a candidate for the hall of shame. But maybe just in my humble opinion. --Hubertl 12:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I must say that the bright effect here comes from the use of a UV filter, this one, this is also why I had chosen the 35mm lens despite the size of the ship, as my 14-24mm accepts no filter. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It’s impressively sharp and rich in detail, yet the tight side crop does not appeal to me. So, it’s just a ship, no idea beyond the plain rendering (if only I could see the wide sea it’s going for! Oh, and I agree with Hubertl about its lack of beauty). Some pixelisation on the right side (look at the letters of the name), maybe due to your perspective correction. I rather tend to oppose in spite of the technical qualities and high resolution.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding capture of an ordinary subject. The dominance of the white and blue throughout the image makes for a strong motif. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. (Crop could be better left and right.) --XRay ^talk 10:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ideally, one would have liked to see some way of compensating for the necessarily short exposure that left the clouds a little darker than they would naturally be. But ... that's a quibble, and this picture easily clears the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport