Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Тумманний світанок на Південному Бузі - околиці с. Самчинці.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Тумманний світанок на Південному Бузі - околиці с. Самчинці.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2016 at 11:54:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info I found this image yesterday and my jaw almost hit the floor. I contacted the author and asked if he would upload a full-resolution version with complete EXIF, which he has now ever so kindly done. I hope you reviewers like it as much as I do!- Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
*
Support by all means --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I may not like it as much as you do, but I like it a lot. It's really artistic, and if it weren't for the sharpness of the rocks, it could be a print, rather than a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support More "paintings"! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. You're right, unnatural at the edges. --XRay talk 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
*
Support --Code (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Has nobody else noticed that it looks quite 'photoshopped'? By that, I mean it's been touched up so that the edges of the frame are artificially blurred as a kind of blur vignette. You can see that the texture of the water just disappears into a blur in quite a pretty fake way. Look at the rock on the left side of the frame. There's a diagonal dividing line between sharpness and blur which is clearly not natural, but that's just one example. You can see it clearly on the right side too. It's a nice motif and a beautiful sunset, but I just can't support such obvious and misleading photoshop work. At the least, it should be disclosed, but I don't think it's the sort of manipulation that we should support here. Just my opinion though. Diliff (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Diliff: I agree with all that you say; I simply didn't notice it on the image because I only looked at the center of the frame to check sharpness. I have contacted user:Q-lieb-in about this (see the image's discussion page). -- Thennicke (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I feel embarrassed but I have to admit: you're absolutely right, @Diliff: . Per Thennicke. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Update from Q-lieb-in: "As the author of the photo, I do not think a good idea to upload the photo without such editing - because it will distort my creative idea to submit this piece of nature".
- I've put a note in the description (I can't seem to find the digital manipulations template?) about the edge softening; that's the best I can do. I still support the promotion of this image, now that this has been done. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I feel embarrassed but I have to admit: you're absolutely right, @Diliff: . Per Thennicke. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I feel quite the same way as Martin Falbisoner and I have to admit that I didn't notice the problems discovered by Diliff. My vote was based on a former (smaller) version of the picture that I already saw some weeks ago. The actual version indeed has some bad retouching issues although I still like the mood and the composition. However, it doesn't meet FP standards so that I have to strike my vote. I feel very sorry for that and therefore won't oppose this nomination, either. --Code (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose full ack. per Diliff. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as others. --Hubertl 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Diliff. I appreciate the description now notes the manipulation made, but I think the overall attempt is to look like fog and thus this misleads the viewer. Whereas a soft-focus vignette of a portrait might be acceptable (assuming that was tasteful and appropriate). -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. --Ralf Roleček 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Diliff. Deliberate artsification is not the sort of thing we feature here, except when explicitly created as an example of those techniques. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
