Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg

File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 15:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
•  Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, there are too many technical quality issues.--Peulle (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I wouldn't really support but I wonder what the too many technical quality issues are. Timing is good, and maybe author didn't sharpen but it's easy "fix" (if it's even considered a fault) and at 6000x4000 come on... And other than that... and I believe the flare is a feature. There are much worse FP. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Benh: "I wouldn't really support" but I {{Support}} : what does that mean ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Because it's necessary to remove the very inspired FPX. - Benh (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Perhaps not a FPX but clearly not a support from my side, because of the inelegant flares, the back light, and the ugly board which completely ruins the landscape. This picture reminds me this recent nomination that was still better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Very nice composition, lovely. IMO the image needs at least a perspective correction. And there are a lot of lens flares, may be dust on the lens. --XRay ^talk 06:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that it was not dust on the lens. It was a high humidity and it was windy that day. As result there were many small drops of water and snowflakes (some of snowflakes are visible as short white strips) in the air. So I think that flares are result of sun rays passing through small water droplets. I like how these flares look here, so I don't want to remove them. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• What about the diagonal fences? I presume they don't look like that. Is that a feature? I'd like to see what this photo looks like with perspective correction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• 11-mm lens... It will be hard... I think that rocks will not fit into the frame or will be too flattened after perspective correction. Maybe I'm wrong, but in this case bent fence makes photo more dynamic. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well it looks weird to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative

• Not sure that it is better. Alternative remake: --Rbrechko (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• It feels more natural, but you lose the most dramatic gestures in the clouds and the fences on the right are cropped worse on the bottom in this version. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, anyway; I appreciate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose No big difference with the first version in relation with my previous oppose -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)