Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rivière Matamec 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rivière Matamec 2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2012 at 12:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Cephas (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I don't want to sound to rude to a contributor as skilled as you... but to me that's a no wow. I think composition and lighting could be better (looks taken at noon), and that flow of water shouldn't be frozen like that (longer exposure time would have yield better sense of movement for me). - Benh (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)- Support for me a very good composition, fantastic light incl. wow factor. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - A.Savin 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I do like the composition, the lighting could be better, but the big problem I see here is the lack of sharpness overall Poco a poco (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I think the light, the composition, the colors, are very good, but per Poco a poco, the sharpness is so-so, in my opinion. I don't think "frozen water" looks like this in real, and the sense of movement is here enough for me. For my taste, a longer exposure for water gives only an ugly motion blur (with exceptions). Matter of taste, indeed...--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)- Oppose The early afternoon light makes the colors slightly dull, and there is CA and unsharpness on the trees, especially on the sides. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
