Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sea Monster.jpg

File:Sea Monster.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sea Monster.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sea Monster.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
•  Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Question 200 ISO and f/11, why this quality? I know that a Nikon D300S have a better image quality with that shoot characteristic. What happend? --The Photographer (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Rule is, there is no rule - i learnt here. I saw POTY 2015 final, last year portrait of a Oktoberfest woman, first vetoed, second try with Lauro Sirgado help got 7 votes. I think it ended somewhere in 15-20 best. Not to feel bad, so lets have a try. --Mile (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)