Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:River Play.jpg

File:River Play.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2022 at 18:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:River Play.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:River Play.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
•  Info created and uploaded by Raykolorz, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support We don't have yet a FP of lovers. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Don't we? Find that a mite hard to believe, but it's a strong image so  Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my support changed vote --Lupe (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ezarateesteban 21:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Not to be a killjoy, but is Category:Fun really a relevant photographic category, or should it be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my support Due to the hair, the background seems to have been manipulated. -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose You have sharp eyes. I see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my support because background was probably replaced. --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background does not disturb anyone ? --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbs me. Love the topic but the background was poorly processed, resulting in an unnatural result. --Tiouraren (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I didn't look at hair, the postprocessing is poor. --Ivar (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose artifical background of some sort. @Yann: , you should declare this in your nomination description. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Good subject, but poor processing and artificial background per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Per Urban Versis 32. -- Wolf im Wald 14:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sure why author hopelessly tried to blur the background and foreground. Trying to mimic these portrait taken with wide aperture telelenses? - Benh (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination I didn't notice the issue with the background. Yann (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)