Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Two dust spots below the cloud that's at the upper right corner must be removed before this photo could be featured. Chances are, there could be others, so the photo should be edited with a fine-toothed comb. However, once that's completed, I will vote to support. The motif is interesting, but what really makes the composition for me is the complementary snowy-looking cloud pattern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I will remove the dust spots, but could you please mark the areas on the image? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Done The dust spots have been removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, the composition with the large white areas and the antenna being so small in the frame doesn't work for me. I feel like much more would have been possible when having been there. – Lucas 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)- Support - To me, this is a snowscape photo that includes some man-made structures, not a photo that zooms in on those structures like a laser beam. The antenna is small in the frame because it and the other snowy structures are part of the snowscape, which extends to the clouds in the sky, as they look like streaks of snow, too. I find it totally appropriate for the man-made structures to be part of the picture without dominating it, and other details like the footprint track to the center left of the picture help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good, but may be better with f/8 instead of f/14 (improvment of sharpness). --XRay talk 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Works because of the sky, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Processing is too poor for me and detracts from wow. Midtones should be brighter; as it is, the sky in particular is too dark, even if a polarising filter was used. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: The stones seem darker, because they are really darker. The sky is too dark as a result of the atmospheric aberration due to the high elevation (this effect can be also observed in this, this, this, this and this). Of course, you may try mitigate the effect by using a polariser, but the contrast of the blue may not be mitigated.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the stones, I have a problem with the midtones. Yes the sky will be darker at that altitude but not quite that dark. Composition isn't great either, as Lucas and Diego have pointed out. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral IMO there is too much sky and the left side is uninteresting, I would have centered the image further to the right and the bottom. Poco2 09:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Sorry, but I keep wanting to move the camera to the right. The slope with the structures would make a nice diagonal across the pic. --cart-Talk 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
