Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wanfried Panorama edit.jpg

File:Wanfried Panorama edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 00:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated and Supported by PETER WEIS TALK 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the foreground is underexposed and the clouds are overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please state why? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the foreground is underexposed and the clouds are overexposedMulazimoglu (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after the given opposes i will provide an improved version. looking forward to do so by the end of the week. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for shear beauty. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Info just uploaded the new version over the old. please add new comments and reconsider your vote. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --shizhao (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I want to be there and sit on that bench. Sigh. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even I'm not entirely convinced, something embarrasses me, and I don't precisely know what, but it is a good and fascinating picture.--Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably would have opposed the first one, but the overexposure problems seem to have been somewhat corrected in the edit. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that this image shows an overview from an important vantage point in that area. it therefore enables people to see this overview without being there and more importantly is the only image on commons depicting this area. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good and very illustrative to me. mgeo talk 10:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Whale--Miguel Bugallo 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the new higher resoultion is fine, but the foreground is now more underexposed than before... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no it is not. i increased the exposure for the foreground compared to the old version, so this would be rather paradox. perhaps it's the impression due to the severe changes in lighting and projection method. if you compare black values, you will notice that the new version features hardly any solid black areas and that the foreground is much more dynamic. after seeing this image on other displays i am more and more under the impression that monitor calibration is critical to review pictures like this one. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]