Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Promenade Saint-Charles 03.jpg

File:Promenade Saint-Charles 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2023 at 02:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Promenade Saint-Charles 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Promenade Saint-Charles 03.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Canada
•  Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just too ordinary (And is it black and white, or very desaturated color? Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Incredibly it is not a black and white photo, simply the weather here is like that (maybe i added the black and white cat by mistake) --Wilfredor (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose per Daniel. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Been thinking about this for a bit, looking at it several times. To me it is not ordinary at all - the wooden walkway leading into nowhere has interesting details like the steps and the way it moves around that tree. I also like the subdued colors which look perfectly natural to me. I know this kind of woods and walkways, they exist in European countries as well. What bothers me a bit is that the area of focus does not extend far enough into the foreground, but the overall impression is so powerful, I still can give support. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I agree entirely with Kritzolina, except that the way I would put it is that it strikes me as a little odd that we go from an unsharp foreground to a sharp background. But that aside, I quite like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Sorry, I like the leading lines but I just find the out-of-focus foreground and the strong shadows too distracting. BigDom (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

the sharp shadows add drama and the front is not out of focus it is a choice of depth of field --Wilfredor (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's maybe a choice to make the foreground out of focus, nevertheless, intentionally or not, it is indeed not in focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose The level of blur of the handrail at the right in the foreground is too distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per Kritzolina. --Wieggy (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose With a closer focus point the result would have been overall better IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral I am going forth and back on this one since a few days. I like the wooden walkway, I like the intentionally out-of-focus foreground, I like the almost black-and-white appearance. My problem is just that I cannot find a point which is really in focus. To make the transition in and out of focus work, I need some area which is clearly in focus; but I can’t find it. This is astonishing because with f/5.6 at 70mm there should be a sufficient depth of focus to make some area clearly sharp. Maybe the autofocus failed? Sometimes AF seems to have problems to focus on areas with many fine structures; maybe this has happend here … Sorry, --Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nikon Z cameras are well-known with this kind of focus problems --Wilfredor (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)