Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Baar - View from Fürstenberg.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 05:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the picture, there is much to see. But the quality is far from good. Maybe try a better lens. -- -donald- (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think, it is a bad lens. The panorama shows a landscape with a distance up to 40 km and you can't get all pixel-sharp over such a distace (e.g. the Rottweil Test Tower - see annotation - in a distance of 35km is clearly visible !). On the right, you can see a flying bird. This bird can be easily identified as a Red kite, Milvus milvus. So I think the quality can't be too bad. --Llez (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This picture is 30,895 × 3,605 pixels. It's of great quality at 50%. Yet it's not good enough? It is for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality but... a bit boring. --Peulle (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure what it comes from – this image is entirely overcast by something I’d call sharpened unsharpness. The edges of areas are sharp while the areas themselves show too little detail. I added an annotation to the barn in the foreground which is just 500 metres away from the camera. Summer day afternoons are hardly the best time to take distant shots because the air is too uncalm with the heat. --Kreuzschnabel 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Immense panorama and I find lots of visual interest in it at full-res, but Kreuzschnabel is IMO correct about the lack of detail and the oversharpening at full size. Do you have the original RAWs? I'm surprised the quality is not a little better, although I guess it might be the heat-haze effect Kreuzschnabel mentions. Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose @Llez: , I think this overall is a good image. However, IMO it is somewhat lacking in quality and the composition could be a tad bit more interesting. Otherwise, I would have voted support. Sorry --Boothsift 00:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)