Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serra Gardunha April 2015-5.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2015 at 19:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Serra da Gardunha is a mountain range in the centre of Portugal known for its production of cherries ... and sightings of ovnis. This panorama was taken from near the top of the range to southeast, in a a cloudy day and almost contre-jour conditions. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Too dark overall. --Tremonist (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)- Oppose Foreground too dark. --Charles (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too dark. -- Pofka (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it's too dark, as noted in the opposes Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment -- I will treausure this nomination as a kind of trophy. Not only because it is my first FPX (wow!) but mainly for the shallowness of the assessments. Has any one considered the possibility that part of the picture is dark because I wanted it to be that way?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have, but that doesn't count, because I didn't vote. I'm guessing others also considered it and decided they don't like it. In any case, it's pretty obvious that it's intentional because some of the highlights are clipped and the D800E has way more dynamic range than shown here, so it must be a result of editing. I personally have the problem that the darkening helps me to know where not to look (foreground), but I can't find something really interesting to focus on in the landscape. I don't think the FPX is appropriate, but I can't contest it becasue I wouldn't support either. — Julian H.✈ 16:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I think you went too far this time.I agree with Julian, FPX is not appropriate for this photo, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- There were three oppose !votes in two days all saying the same thing, and no supports from anyone except the nominator. You can always use {{FPX contested}} here if you think this was too soon. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mean to do, that ping to you and following comment were my mistake, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mean to do, that ping to you and following comment were my mistake, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- There were three oppose !votes in two days all saying the same thing, and no supports from anyone except the nominator. You can always use {{FPX contested}} here if you think this was too soon. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment For crying out loud! I've set the thing to "FPX contested", which it clearly is. It's quite obvious that this image requires a bit more consideration than the swift disposal that an FPX produces. There's an analogy here with en:Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Please, guys, m:Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving a project, ignore it. Daniel, your FPX is inappropriate and rude. Your opinion that one could use "FPX contested" is only relevant if someone actually spots what you did within 24 hours. I find this panorama interesting but am not best placed to judge its qualities till I get home to my PC tonight. However, I note that it has no colourspace tag/profile, which will result in arbitrary/wrong colours for some users (e.g. a wide-gamut monitor will not display this at all correctly when using most popular browsers in their default configuration). -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Is there no way to remove the FPX like this case except the "FPX contested"? --Laitche (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the "FPX contested" -- it flags that someone set it FPX and someone disagreed. The issue is the "I can't do something unless the rules say I can" paralysis that afflicts some users on Commons. It's a wiki, not a fossil; we don't need rules to govern every action and even what rules we have are editable by anyone. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thnaks for your comment. --Laitche (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the "FPX contested" -- it flags that someone set it FPX and someone disagreed. The issue is the "I can't do something unless the rules say I can" paralysis that afflicts some users on Commons. It's a wiki, not a fossil; we don't need rules to govern every action and even what rules we have are editable by anyone. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Neutral I think the image looks better with a little downsizing to improve the sharpness. I like the sky, the colours on the land, and the sillhouette framing could work -- but that tree a third of the way along is blocking my view of the lake. And, as Julian notes, there isn't a focus of interest. Like many high views of lowlands, they are interesting but hard to be photogenic without something dramatic going on, e.g. with the weather (fog with a temperature inversion, perhaps, or shafts of light). -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Colin and also I think Daniel just did a kind of his job but we are a human so doing everything mechanically is not a good thing, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
