Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg

File:Río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 21:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Rafting in the Nenana River, Healy, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco² 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not with this sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad light. The people in the raft are tiny and despite the opportunity for an exiting photo of white-water-rafting, there's no excitement in this frame at all. Is the geolocation correct? If so, the railway line should be as straight as a ruler for 9km, but here it looks like it is following round a sharp bend in the river. So again I think the cylindrical perspective is causing factual-accuracy problems with the scene, which is a problem for an educational media repository. -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Colin, actually, the light is very, very good, soft and low contrast that allows very rich detail throughout the image and especially in the shadows. You actually may be talking about a bad sky which could be more interesting by increasing drama and detail to the clouds. As far as the size of the rafts and people, well, they provide good scale or proportion to the image and yes, I agree with you, it is not an exiting photograph of rafting, but maybe that was never the intention. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes the sky is the problem. While the light from an overcast sky would be good light for a photo of some shore-side rocks or for inside the woods, I don't think it is good for general scenic photo that includes 1/3 of sky in the photo. Also I'm really not at all sure what I'm looking at is reality. Both the "river bend" and the "cone-shaped hill" don't seem to exist on the google map location. I suspect both are illusions of the ultra-wide cylindrical perspective. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose No good light.--Peulle (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin. While I was lucky enough to have sunlight and a good position when it was my turn to take pictures of people rafting on a remote far-northern river, the point there is that they were hitting the rapids at the time so there was excitement inherent in the image. For this one the rapids are right in front us yet the rafts are approaching the rapids. At least show the fun part. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Poc I did a quick and dirty Lightroom adjustment to the sky, lowering exposure and increasing contrast and it does improve the sky quite a bit. Maybe you should try it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you Tomascastelazo, I tried that, too and you are probably right, but I don't think that it will save this nom...anyhow, I appreciate your help Poco² 20:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose per others because of the sky, which is really oppressive to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others, primarily light. --Karelj (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco² 20:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)