Commons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg

File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 16:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/ File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg

131

525

148

157

6132

2623

dust spot here

•  Info The main square of Porto Covo in a winter day, Portugal (detail). Much better than my other pictures of the same subject. Everyting by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Alvesgaspar, I am shocked! You should know better than to crop it to tightly. As someone once said, "Let the poor thing..." --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please set a good example and comment on the image, not the photographer. Also, if you don't allude to previous discussions, your review will be easier for new readers to understand. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Alvesgaspar is usually the one who points out tight crops. A bit of an inside joke. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I understood the context of your remark, but the new people may not. You are one of the major nominators and reviewers on FPC and provide an example of how to communicate here. With influence comes responsibility. But, anyone can understand that you thought the subject was cropped too closely. That clarity is one of the attributes that make your reviews helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• No offense taken. The comment was funny, though not applicable in this situation (plenty of air in the backyard ;-) ). Anyway, fun is the major motivation of many people here, including me. Please don't take it away! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Not too tight. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The main challenge with this nice square seems to be the composition, given the horizontal nature of the subject and the difficultly shaped trees, located close to the buildings. This 2007 detail works because an angle has been found where the trees do not obscure the main elements of the façade. In contrast in this nomination the tree obscures a window and a roof element, which is more disturbing as it happens close to the center of the image. I would suggest a left crop, so that the tree in front of the window becomes more marginal. This angle was more favourable, although it has to deal with the dark pine which attracts too much attention. I find the dark pine, when included, is better shown cut than as a whole as here and here. I also like the overall view. --Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Thanks for your carefull review, Elekhh! This subject is an endless fascination for me and winter light is much better than summer's. As a side note, that is not a pine tree but an Araucaria heterophylla. It was introduced in Portugal in the 19th century, some say, using a single individual from which all existing trees descend. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I thought it was a Norfolk Island Pine, sorry for using the Australian vernacular name ;) --Elekhh (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Touché! I did not realize you were from Australia... Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
        • To be precise not "from" but "in". En guard... --Elekhh (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose These pictures of this village make me love it without knowing it. I'm trully sorry, but I'm disapointed by the crop of the house at right.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- That was cropped on purpose for aesthetical reasons, as it would be a too large white area if it were kept. Please check here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. It is a good reason, but cannot be known at first when looking on this only picture.--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- For me the crop is just fine but the image looks so artificial. Maybe too much work on the original imageMulazimoglu (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- No work at all on the original. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Than theres a technical problem. Bina çok parlak görünüyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the houses are painted white. Anything else? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Nice view, good composition (acceptable crop, although rather tight indeed), excellent technical quality, pleasant colors, encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support now. Decently, I cannot oppose because of my original reason. Sharpness and colors are very good. This square is really charming, and after many reflections, I've decided to change my vote... But please, remove the little dustspot left in the sky, near the little cloud (annotation)--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jebulon, I will remove the two spots (plus the spurious branch at left). I'm very careful with my nominations but those little bastards succeded to pass through the net. I'm about to hereby Jebulon the Great Barnstar of Dust Spot Detectors! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose too ordinal look for me. Clear QI, but far not FP by composition. Nothing outstanding, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, right part building missing. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose After having read the lenghty and interesting discussion. I think the crop is unfortunate. I realize not much can be done with it. I like the May FP better. The light, detail level and colors are very good as well as the atmosphere. --Slaunger (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 I feel a bit dismayed with the outcome as these were wonderful lighting conditions and the picture is close to the best I can do. I still have another version though... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)