Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpg, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)- Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, and no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin and Kind of Hearts -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts. The foreground covering nearly half of the frame is not a composition that works for me here. Btw, there’s at least one really HUGE dust spot in the sky, and there seems to be considerable colour banding and sharpened noise speckles … tut tut, I am pixelpeeping again. --Kreuzschnabel 23:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany
