Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karula vaade.jpg

File:Karula vaade.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2014 at 19:19:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Karula vaade.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karula vaade.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Janno Loide - nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Very beautiful, but could be better in the sharpness department. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Finally ... an image that goes along perfectly with the opening chord of the Cocteau Twins' "Lazy Calm". Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per --King of ♥ ♦ ♣. Only the foreground is clear. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As above, plus excessive processing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect! Kruusamägi (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support, foreground could be sharper, otherwise nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support :-) --XRay ^talk 17:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose A pretty scene for sure, but its overprocessed to the point that it looks kind of unnatural to me. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Leitoxx ^{Work • Talk • Mail} 01:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality and processing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  To clarify: My main problem is that the image is not sharp enough for a landscape photo in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per all opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Off topic  Comment: I think that a "weak support" is just incompatible and inconsistent with the FP spirit... If the support is "weak", it is because of reasons which should bring to an "oppose" vote.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment This was -22°C evening, with winter haze, and the horizon is more than 20km away. What clearness and detail would one possibly expect (without some extensive processing of course)? The soft horizon is only natural here. This picture is also blended from 2 shots, so yes, a bit more work than just "fire&forget". With a scene having dynamic range alike this blending gives actually a lot more "natural" result than just one exposure (which would left either the sky completely burn white or the distant landscape charred almost black). Also, I don't agree with this oversaturation rebuke either. I have this photo printed out and don't see the oversaturation neither here online nor on paper. Amadvr (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--ℳ₪Zaplotnik^contribs 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed. --Graphium 05:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• @ Saffron Blaze, Alvesgaspar, Dey.sandip, Julian H. and Jebulon: Janno (Amadvr) also gave his comment about the image. Maybe you'll find it interesting. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  I already responded by clarifying my vote. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  Interesting comment indeed. But I try to review with a great care and attention, I read frequently wat is written here, and I've no further explanations to provide, sorry. And I hope there are never "fire&forget" shots here in FPC...--Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Weak  Support per Tuxyso (PP is fine for me, see also my comment at the other nomination). --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural