Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg

File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 23:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg

•  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Cool composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• {{s}} Neato. lol --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Switch. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kooritza (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment and again: a bit tilted ccw... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose-- It is dark with lack of enough contrast. Everything but the sign is blurred. Grinatyou (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Lack of image quality is not mitigated by extraordinary composition or mood. As pointed out by someone Jebulon, the lighting of the sand is uneven. Horizon is curved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose With the above two. –hoverFly | chat? 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Info The color of the mud is fixed. I cannot agree that "everything but the sign is blurred". It is not. The only thing that is a little bit blurred is the ocean because the waves were moving and this is a time exposure. Everything else is sharp, and it would have been rather strange, if it were blurred with only the sign being sharp. The sign and the staircase were photographed in a single shot. The camera was put at tripod. So with F10 used either everything is blurred or everything is sharp, and IMO it is sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Edit 1

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

C)

•  Support Aha! That's it! Much better. Kooritza (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Much better, nice now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Image quality did not improve. On the contrary, oversaturated colors don't look natural at this period of the day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that grass looks too healthy and vibrant for grass growing in clumps by the sea. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    It is about 200 feet above the sea level, and yes, the grass and plants were healthy and blooming just the day before the erosion took 30 feet of the ground at once. Here's one of the images taken 2 months later at the same place, and as you could see the plants are healthy and vibrant: --Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Yeah, but the grass on this alt is a bit too bright and shiny, real grass doesn't even look like that on a bright day, see note, and then you have to figure it's gonna be that shade but darker because of the time of day and weather. I prefer the colors of the alt so I'm switching my votes I think. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Could you please tell me, if you like this version better? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

        • That one's nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

          I reverted it to the old version.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

          • For your consideration this is the one I described before with the +15 brightness, not that this nomination is kooky enough. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Info The saturation was reduced.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- A new subsection should be created for each alternative. This way it is difficult to keep track of what's going on or even to know which version each user has voted in. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Weak support IMO on GIMP it looked nice with the lightness of this version at +15. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- Again, please notice that the concept of "Weak" or "Strong" Support, or Oppose, is not part of FPC voting system and affects the behaviour of the FPC bot. There are other ways of expressing the same ideas, in the text that follows the normal vote. If you want to propose the use of half of double votes please start a thread in FPC talk. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The bot is not the only one who reads the discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I know, but that's what I feel, and Julian's right, they are often done by hand anyway. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, then maybe may you express your feeling with simple words like Weak support, without using a false template... I wonder how some can complicate very simple things...--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sky is partly blown-out, and the foreground is way underexposed. I don't think this image meets the exposure requirements of a featured image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)