Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg

File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
•  Info The ridges of the hills in Bohuslän can produce some striking scenery at times. These are the hills between two fjords, geological formations that are the south part of the landscape more associated with Norway. The color version was not very different from this B&W, so converting it was only natural. All by me -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• I  Support the nomination. I'm undecided on whether I like the B&W or color version better, but I think that's only because the color version has more light in the middleground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another image for the "walls of a psychiatrist's office" category. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Rats! I should not have given up my copyright for this, psychiatrics usually do very well and I could have charged a bundle for it. ;) --cart-Talk 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I would have preferred the color version for the blue tint, but grayscale (for most images B&W is a misnomer) works too. – Lucas^T 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Kitsch. --Karelj (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Question Kitsch in what way? By the way, have you ever supported any woman's nomination, not to put too fine a point on the question? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Let's not make this into a gender issue, shall we. I don't think my gender has anything to do with this and it should certainly not be taken into account when someone vote on my photos. There are some users who are more blunt/rude than others, I guess we have to live with that. --cart-Talk 08:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I respect your wishes, and I will not mind if you delete this subthread, but we can leave everyone to their own suspicions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral On the one hand, I like to support this one because I like these graduated layers of grey tones, on the other hand it seems too noisy or grained to me (although I know it's an effect of the fog). --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Totally valid point. I know, it's a bitch, you want the effect the fog provides but you don't want the fog effect, and making more NR will only lose detail. It's a no-win situation... --cart-Talk 17:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose sorry kitsch, nothing featuterable for me. No wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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