Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg

File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 13:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Nepal, national park Langtang. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree. Charles (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Following the negatives, I've had another look. I still love it, but the technical quality is poor so I go neutral. Charles (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Regretful oppose I can accept the sky being a little noisy for such a well-composed sunset. But I cannot accept the ground looking like something from an old hand-tinted postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's pretty but seriously uncomfortable to look at. Feels like I'm about to fall off to the left. A slight (1.1 degrees) cw rotation make it better but it's still uneasy on the mind. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Daniel. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good light management in this impressing photo. Haze always appears like noise and might be misunderstood in this way.--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. -- -donald- (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment The high pass filter has brought out noise and also glowing artifacts along high contrast edges (particularly on the ridge in the bottom left corner). If the creator had not used such a strong high pass filter and colour saturation increase, the photo would have been FP for sure --- the camera used is very good (Nikon D800) and the settings (f/11, ISO 100) are clearly appropriate for this type of photo. dllu (t,c) 21:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Incredibly beautiful shot. Noise is forgivable, because it is fog, after all. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great! (and per Philip Terry Graham) --Brateevsky {talk} 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm not sure whether to oppose, but to my eyes, there's something wrong with the appearance of the mountaintop in the foreground, so it's not just that there's a fine grain/noise associated with fog. I'm not sure whether it's noise or something else. Also, if this does get featured, I hope the dust spot in the upper left is removed first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose - I'm thinking I should at least provisionally oppose, pending the removal of the dust spot. After that, I may reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done I removed the dust. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've struck my oppose vote. I'm still not so happy about the foreground, but the view is so spectacular that I will be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural