Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beskid Wyspowy in the evening (2).JPG

File:Beskid Wyspowy in the evening (2).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2016 at 21:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Beskid Wyspowy in the evening (2).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beskid Wyspowy in the evening (2).JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info created and uploaded by Pudelek - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty sunset picture, and what really makes it featurable to me is the poetry of the sun being in an almost direct line with the wayside shrine of the Virgin Mary. I suppose some of the sunlight is posterized, but that's unavoidable if any darker features are to be distinguished at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose no wow. looks like a random sunset. too dark foreground. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - As a thumbnail, this photo doesn't look like much, but at full-page size, it's relatively dark but to me appropriately so for the time of day and I find that it looks quite good. What makes this much better than a random sunset in my judgment is the composition, with the shrine framed by trees on its right and left (and behind it), mountains beyond and then a beautiful sky. But a wow is something you either feel or don't. I'd encourage everyone to look at this photo in full-page size (and full size) and make up their own mind based on that. Whether you end up supporting or opposing, I appreciate the time taken to consider the photo and thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely a lot better in full size than what could be guessed from thumbnail, but at least for me it wasn't so good to change to first impression of hell no into support :P Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Totally understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Lens flare. --C messier (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I figured that was how the sky really looked, but I could see how this could be lens flare. Pudelek, do you have any comment? If this is caused by lens flare, is it fixable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • maybe now is better? --Pudelek (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pudelek, I don't see any difference between the new version and the revert. Are you sure you saved the new file and didn't save the old file again by mistake? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, i'm sure and I see the difference between 2 and 3 version (this is not revert) --Pudelek (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
        • We're talking about the same versions. The 1st and 2nd versions are both listed as "revert", as opposed to "current". And toggling back and forth between the 2nd and 3rd versions, I still see no difference whatsoever. Is there something I could be doing wrong? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose The distant mountains are nice, but the foreground is too dark and the patches of snow + dark grass isn't attractive. -- Colin (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kruusmagi and Colin. In addition, there's a fair amount of posterization in the sunset. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination - I think the opponents' arguments have merit, and maybe they're right that although I like the poetry and composition of this picture, it's not outstanding enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)