Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neutral density filter demonstration.jpg

File:Neutral density filter demonstration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2014 at 01:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neutral density filter demonstration.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neutral density filter demonstration.jpg

•  Info created by Robert Emperley - uploaded by NotFromUtrecht - nominated by Crisco 1492 --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - Godot13 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose It maybe high EV, but not FP. -- -donald- (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. The "Wow!" is certainly there, owing to the drastic shift between the (blown-out) area outside the filter and the (well-balanced) area within it. The position of the filter, a little off center, draws the eye, and the visible fingers provide some scale as well as a visual indication that this is not how a filter is meant to be used, but is in this instance being used to illustrate a technique (I mean, otherwise everyone who ever used a filter would have fingers in their photographs. Even UV filters.). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Crisco --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Pleclown (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I cannot help thinking that this image, useful as it might be, would not be placed well among other FPs. ~60% of the image are overexposed and yes, this is the point of the image, but imo that cannot work for FP. --DXR (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with other opposers. This has high EV, but for me it is hard to see it as a FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per above. Yann (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support it is a quality and interesting photo.--Monfie (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Works for me. One of very rare cases where an obvious non-QI is eligible for FP. A real original idea. --A.Savin 19:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Fine for me. This is not an ordinary photograph and should not be evaluated under standards for one. If FPs required for there to be no large blown-out areas, then File:Mitochondrion (standalone version)-en.svg and File:Achelousaurus dinosaur.png would not be allowed to be FP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral I've had supported an image with a better crop, like a square, in some way. IMO, almost the half part of the right side is useless and is too much attractive.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote; 50 edits required --A.Savin 08:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects