Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach of Seaside in Walton County in Florida Panhandle.JPG

File:Beach of Seaside in Walton County in Florida Panhandle.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 20:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Beach of Seaside in Walton County in Florida Panhandle.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach of Seaside in Walton County in Florida Panhandle.JPG

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Info I made the color slide 1991 with Olympus OM-4 and Kodachrome 25 Reversal film, 35 mm, ASA 25 daylight and scanned it now with the scanner Nikon Coolscan V ED and Vue Scan 9x64 (9.0.82). I like the colours by Kodachrome 25. They are unchanged after 23 years. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I agree Michael. The scan really looks good after 23 years. I would normally object to such a photo due to limited value, but the composition and colors are really great and a pleasure for the eye, so I will make an exception for this revived little gem . --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I had not noticed the missing tube problem at first. Striking my support for now. Will support if fixed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Supporting again after tube fix. Now that I know there was a problem there I cannot help notice that the tube fix looks a little weird. I think it could be further refined, but not enough for me to oppose as it is now. --Slaunger (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment WOW! but what about the vanishing tube? --82.57.142.136 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment This really is something different. I would also support if the tube was solved. --Ximonic (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I rebuild the image. The tube is returned. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment There is some color banding on the sky. --Ivar (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image is clearly manipulated (compare original with current) so needs a "retouched" template. The sky is very posterised -- you've ruined it with the alterations. I think you should go back to the original and just fix the little black top-left corner and leave the rest alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin; nice compositional idea but way too processed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Support I like it now. The sky's still a little dark but ... you are playing it off the pink umbrella so that's forgivable. A nice inviting image otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I rebuild the image like Colin wrote. Please check the image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Much better now imho - there's nothing wrong with a bit of sea grass lying around on the beach etc. However, compared to the original version, the sand has lost a bit of detail now (kinda looks a bit overexposed?). --El Grafo (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you, I rebuilded the image in detail. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)--Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Better. I'm still not convinced this small picture is special enough for FP, but not strongly enough to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support now. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)