Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpg

Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 18:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpg

10635

3144

159

144

13748

4326

very little stitching error

10030

404

115

115

13748

4326

lot of burnt pixels around here.

•  Info created by Alex.vonbun - uploaded by Alex.vonbun - nominated by Alex.vonbun -- alex.vonbun (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- alex.vonbun (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support wow ! A few minor stitching error, but the place, the lighting, the dramatic sky... I must support. - Benh (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Question Just why not ISO 100 and a slightly larger aperture ? Noise is very noticeable and as far as I know, a too narrow aperture has some image quality penalty. But given the size, it's very minor issues. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Info D5k doesnt have ISO 100. --Mile (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to have, but this must be activated somehow. See [1] - Benh (talk)

•  Support Despite the noise (snow and clouds)--Jebulon (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I annotated a very little stitching error.--Jebulon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Per Benh. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Jebulon, please put notes of errors on the nomination page, rather than the image itself. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeToo many burnt pixles, obvious lens glare (see notes), noise. --Mile (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support a few errors but overall FP-worthy, imho -- Marmoulak (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Mile.--Snaevar 15:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support burnt pixels etc comments.. are minimal flows (and easily to be corrected). It is a good image and I cannot find stitching errors. Ggia (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive image of a magnificent landscape... the blown pixels should be repaired. --Cayambe (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Ggia. The best of the crop should be faultless IMO. W.S. 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ??? --alex.vonbun (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I added a support vote! Ggia (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I suppose it is a way to show some scorn to the reviews (and the reviewers) : turn in derision arguments by using them for an opposite (and oppose, obviously) vote. Please see the same thing in votes under the pic of Hong Kong. Very funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great pic! --Aktron (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose, sun...--shizhao (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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