Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fischbachl Seiseralm Südtirol.JPG

File:Fischbachl Seiseralm Südtirol.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2013 at 14:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fischbachl Seiseralm Südtirol.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fischbachl Seiseralm Südtirol.JPG

•  Info created by moroder - uploaded by moroder - nominated by moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support JKadavoor Jee 14:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Really wonderful! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice compositon. IMHO sharpness could be better. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nice nature! --Ximeg (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Arcalino (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Angle is nice. Mono 19:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support great winter landscape--ArildV (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks good when downsampled but sharpness is lacking at full size. --Pine^✉ 06:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Need a review at 36MP? People use images for different purposes. Anyone can down-sample according to their needs. But the reverse is difficult. Further, the perfect size for sharp-enough is difficult to decide. JKadavoor Jee 08:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Need" not, but I think the photo could be definitely sharper. One can photograph very sharp photos even in fullsize with a D800, see this FP or this QI. IMHO it is not a sharpness-FP but the composition is very nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know which 35mm Moroder used. High res. cameras are very sensitive to many lenses. Lighting conditions may also a parameter here. JKadavoor Jee 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)^

 Info I used the 24-70 f/2.8G Nikon lens. BTHW I don't understand why I loose so many EXIF data converting NEF files to JPG with ViewNX2.

A good lens; but it is nowhere as good as the 24/1.4G or 35/1.4G prime. BTW, I don't know which 24mm Tuxyso used. JKadavoor Jee 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case I've shown here I used the 24mm T&S lens from Nikon. I've heard that the 24-70 has some field curvature ("Bildfeldwölbung") and may not be as optimal for landscape shot as for portrayal shots (but it is just speculation). --Tuxyso (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess a fix lens must be better anyhow but a zoom can be a good compromise. I believe the images indicated by Tuxyso cannot be compared with mine, since they are of two buildings, different subjects, different patterns patterns, with much less depth of field --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Quite blurry for a standard non-moving subject.  B.p. 11:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Mehdi^Talk 06:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but per others. --Vamps (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural