Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seljalandsfoss-2 (44669260075).jpg

File:Seljalandsfoss-2 (44669260075).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Seljalandsfoss-2 (44669260075).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seljalandsfoss-2 (44669260075).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
•  Info created by Bernd Thaller - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Dramatic scene, and the wildflowers are a nice touch. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, unlikely to get it without the people by the sound of it. Charles (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree it is over-processed, but maybe a new version could be submitted? Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Tozina (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Question Does the land actually slope like that or are we talking some lens distortion? (see horizon)--Peulle (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  As it's close to the center and it's not a stitched panorama, it's almost certainly natural. Curvature that bad near the center would result in ungodly distortion in the edges, which does not appear to be the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment One of my favourites corners in the world...still the image is tilted in cw direction (see the left half of the image) --Poco² 20:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment looks oversaturated. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • •  Oppose Seven Pandas (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Completely overprocessed. When looking at this I really feel more as being in front of a total fake scenery than a natural landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose overprocessed, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose overprocessed, at least in the eyes of a Wikimedian who cares for natural colours and atmospheres, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others, lurid! :\ Try 500px instead; they seriously love those overprocessed pictures over there. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful, but oveprocessed... If you have the RAW file try again, because the image has potential, however, the colors are too strong and therefore unnatural. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per King. After reading all the opposes I was ready to see a total disaster area when I pixel-peeped. I didn't. Yes, the highlights on the cloud and the waterfall could be dimmed a bit. Yes, the sharpening of the ridgeline is a little hard to ignore. But I don't find the colors too lurid (maybe just a matter of personal taste, I guess). We have forgiven worse in the past here, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment However, the contrast is too high, don't you think? Look at the top part of the rock-cliff overhanging the walkway; there is quite a substantial bit of underexposure clipping. But I do agree it is actually quite non-chaotic when you pixel-peep. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, we don't need to pixel-peep, it's really too obvious at screen size already Far too much clarity, contrast, vibrance, saturation, certainly a ton of local adjustments, and also Photoshop filters to make the view as artificial as possible. On the same Flickr account we can see this author is mainly a Photoshop player creating photomontages and fake pictures (1,2,3,4, 5, 6). Also hundreds of similar overprocessed works : 7, 8, 9, 10. But I agree this is a question of taste, and I'm sure if this picture got promoted here, it would reach a high score in POTY 2019, since this kind of render is the last trend. The only problem is in 10 years, when the tastes will have changed, then it will just look strange, like old and bizarre -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Compared to the ones you linked to, I find the processing here rather restrained. There's no soft focus, no too-obvious HDR. I don't think we should consider it in the context of his other work just because it wouldn't make FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Although there is a lot of work involved, I agree with Basile.--Ermell (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I like this photo a lot, to a point. If the photographer were here, I would ask him to try dialing back the saturation and maybe working a little on the definition of the parts in shadow on the right. But the thing is, yes, the photo is flawed, but it's spectacular, so I ultimately come down on the side of supporting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Well done --Photographer 23:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)