Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reine Lofoten 2009.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Reine Lofoten 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Sveter – uploaded by Sveter – nominated by Draceane — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Neutral It is certainly better than the existing FP but I think File:Reine at Reinefjorden, 2010 September.jpg by User:Ximonic is far superior in resolution and light and atmosphere. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Colin, and furthermore the lake is cropped on the right in this one, and too closely on the left as well. Seems a bit of an arbitrary composition -- Thennicke (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well we don't know. Moving backwards isn't always possible or introduces other unwanted elements into the scene (like some huge road sign). And rather fewer people have the equipment and know-how to make panoramas that are good enough for FP. So again I think "I see no reason why that couldn't be done here" is rather supposing quite a lot. We can wish the scene was wider, that's all. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. My vote is only because of the "best of the best" criterion -- Thennicke (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well we don't know. Moving backwards isn't always possible or introduces other unwanted elements into the scene (like some huge road sign). And rather fewer people have the equipment and know-how to make panoramas that are good enough for FP. So again I think "I see no reason why that couldn't be done here" is rather supposing quite a lot. We can wish the scene was wider, that's all. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. The colors and composition are great, the former especially feel like the Arctic as I have experienced it, but there is far too much unsharpness and CA in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin. -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
