Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterpanorama von der Milseburg.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Winterpanorama von der Milseburg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2022 at 11:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view from the Milseburg mountain
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Hesse
  •  Info Panoramic view (300°) from the Milseburg in the Rhön Mountains, Hesse, Germany. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Absolutely impressive panorama, well done and beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yes, a great achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry I have never found these extreme ratios panorama useful nor aesthetically pleasing to the eye. They cannot really be enjoyed "as a coherent single thing" and if they are to be browsed, then they fall short compared to spherical panoramas. Most of the scene is also in the shade, making for a not so eye catching sight. - Benh (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I do take Benh's point, 360 degree panoramas are not my favourite either, but this is so fun to explore in full size, and although a lot of it is in shade, I do still find it has the wow-factor. Cmao20 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we say the same thing, but just to be clear, spherical panos are also 360. Just they are 360x180° so, while they are not so enjoyable to look at in their entirety, they provide much more immersion with a proper viewer. - Benh (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Benh. Two problems: 1) Too much is in the shade, and 2) my appreciation of landscapes in general is not compatible with such long long formats. I think because the pleasure of the eyes is to be able to circulate through a picture. When you shrink that much a scenery, the sight gets blocked: the eyes just go left or right, but not up and down, through the content. Unless you zoom very big, such extreme ratios are not aesthetic, in my opinion. However the major problem is definitely the light, and it's visible from the thumbnail: there are only two tiny parts of sunny areas : one at the left and another one at the center. The whole rest is darkness. No light in a photograph = no wow. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Benh --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I love exploring (and shooting) large panoramas myself, but I agree with Benh and the others on this one. It is fun to explore, but not particularly striking with the shadows. I also prefer sphericals, although they are of course not always possible (and sometimes they are mostly boring sky and ground, so perhaps in this case the format you chose is better suited). --Domob (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Yes, most of it is fairly dark, but there are some light patches. I think that the combination makes this an excellent photo. (I readily admit that I'm a big fan of panoramics.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinD (talk • contribs)
  •  Oppose Too much in shade. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Winterpanorama_von_der_Milseburg.jpg&oldid=621165224"