Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kirnu.JPG

File:Kirnu.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 09:55:03

•  Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 09:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 09:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. -- JovanCormac 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautifully photographed. Crisp, clear and noise free. I would vote this based on the facial expression of the barefoot girl on the left alone. Excellent! Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I had already considered nominating it for FP when I did the QI review, but didn't for a lack of time. -- H005 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The feeling is there... Yann (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry to spoil the party... image is a little soft at 100%, there is really no sense of movement, too static when motion should be more evident. I see no encyclopedic value, and as a promotional picture the snap is not there for me... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I tried to do panning, but it didn't work because it moves to many directions, and the facial expressions would be lost. It has EV, it could be used in articles like Kirnu, Linnanmäki etc. —kallerna™ 07:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Tomascastelazo.--Claus (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Tomascastelazo.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's interesting to see how after many "support"s, the first "oppose" is often followed by a string of others. This pattern can be observed in many nominations, another notable example being this one. -- JovanCormac 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems that you're new here on FPC. Many users don't write english very well, so joining an oppose vote is a established way here on Commons. Reg.   • Richard • [®] • 09:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't criticizing the behavior, nor was I commenting on people joining an opposing vote by writing "per USER", which is obviously acceptable. I just find it interesting that a single oppose often triggers an avalance of similar ones, as if the shortcomings hadn't been present before and a bunch of users were just waiting for the first one to oppose so they could jump on the bandwagon. -- JovanCormac 10:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • After the ice is broken it goes the roman style - thumb up or down :-)   • Richard • [®] • 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough, snapshot with auto exposure.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Err? You oppose because it was shot using auto exposure? So what a machine does can't be good, only honorable manual work is worth being featured? A weird argument. Also I find this picture extremely sharp, except maybe for a few minor areas, but those are also acceptable. -- H005 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that setting a faster exposure time manually works better for taking such images. I do not think the people are sharp enough.--Two+two=4 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a manually forcing of a faster exposure time with same f-stop causes an underexposure. If then it's ISO because the f-stop value with the resulting DOF looks fine 2 me.   • Richard • [®] • 16:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with others here and hope that lots of others do as well - because if an image caught using auto features of a camera are not any good, I may as well pack up and go home :) I am useless with my camera setting, although I am tyring to learn them, but for me, an image is about the image itself, not about the skills of the photographer. This image for instance, gives me white knuckles just by giving it a glance - I'm on the ride. Julielangford (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)