Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpg

File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpg, withdrawn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - Happy New Year! That's very pretty, but can a description in an internationally-understood language please be added? I don't think an Estonian-only description is remotely sufficient to inform an international viewership. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Done Really, Estonian isn't internationally-understood? Who might guessed :) Kruusamägi (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment over-saturated colours imo, perharps fixable--ArildV (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Too much noise reduction in my opinion, looks painted in some areas (not a big deal given the resolution). Not completely blown away by the composition either (I think the upper 20% don't add anything). — Julian H.^✈ 15:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Water looks great but unfortunately the trees and coarse woody debris in the background drag it down to an ordinary fall scene in a temperate forest. If that were cropped I might be able to support. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - Thank you for adding an English-language description. Per Daniel's remarks: I really like the woody debris, which in my opinion adds a lot to the composition. My only question would be, per Julian's comments: Did the water really look like that? If it did, I will support running this, but please assure us that the "painted" quality is actually the way the water looked, as that might convince some others to support, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To me the real problem with the woody debris is that it's also darker than I would like, although to be fair that does make it less of a distraction. At bottom, it's an inevitable tradeoff of leaving the shutter open for two and a half seconds, perhaps with a polarizer or ND filter, and why I think it would look better cropped to just the water. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Matter of taste, but the long exposure makes water unnatural.--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite ridiculous and non sense vote... puff -- RTA 02:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You are welcome. Quite agressive and disrespectful comment... puff.--Jebulon (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Cry more, and I not even used the real language that your comment deserved... -- RTA 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
        • "Commons" is not censored, please feel free to express yourself, dear puff !--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Julian. INeverCry 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  weak support Very pretty. I'm with those who prefer the water looking more natural, but the long exposure may help with the rich colors here, which I like. --Pine^✉ 08:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unrealistic look. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)