Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:K-99 mileage sign closeup.jpg

Image:K-99 mileage sign closeup.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Scott5114 - uploaded by Scott5114 - nominated by Scott5114 -- —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support as nominator. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - bad composition. I don't think that there is any value to the image of the sign closeup.--Avala (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It shows the method of cutting the letters out of sheet metal and attaching them to the sign afterward, called demountable copy, as opposed to cutting them out of vinyl and sticking them to the sign (direct-applied copy). Demountable copy is only consistently used in Kansas and sporadically in other states. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK then I change my vote.--Avala (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -sky burnt out. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate as to what this means? I'm not a professional photographer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blown highlights, some pixels in the image are completely, or close to, RGB(255,255,255). --Base64 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- Phil13 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Radbod

•  Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of blown highlights, size and awkward composition. MER-C 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  This does fall within the guidelines. So FPX does not apply in this case. --norro 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Only remove when you support please. Lycaon (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Wonderful. --norro 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Like it --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like the reflection of the clouds and the picture is very sharp. You can see the scratchings and texture of the sign. --Lošmi (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support — unique composition necessary to capture the subject matter (demountable copy) on a a sign that would otherwise require a scissor lift to achieve a more regular composition. A little editing with contrast levels to bring the sky back in line, but otherwise I find it a different perspective of a sign normally seen whizzing down the highway at full speed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Illustrative, but the lower left of "22" is out of focus, sorry. --Base64 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition doesn't convince me --AngMoKio (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose probably joke? --Karelj (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please try to keep comments constructive and assume that everyone who submits a picture does it believing they have something of FPC status. Focus on encouraging people to improve Bastique ^demandez 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you have something like this at commons, but I'm from enwiki, and we have a policy called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you ever so much for thinking that my image is of such poor quality that you assume I'm joking by nominating it, though. </sarcasm> —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Shoot the photograph again with a greater w:depth of field to ensure at the very least the number 22 is entirely in focus. Shoot with the sun in a different position or behind a cloud to eliminate the blown highlights. I don't think this is a photoshop fix. Bastique ^demandez 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this particular sign is in another state from me (it is in Emporia, Kansas and I live in central Oklahoma). I'll be in the area around the end of September but as I'd only be swinging by there en route to somewhere else I wouldn't have a lot of control over the time of day I'd be around there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose no wow for me --Ianare (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well this image is quite original, so it is interesting, but some darker colors would be advisable. The sky is overburned, the sign itself has quite a bluish hue. Aktron (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose FPX candidate (highlights, composition, DOF). Lycaon (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really not excellent. Debianux (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I hope this doesn't make me seem arrogant, but I get the feeling that this is pretty much a random shot from a session of experimenting with different angles. --Aqwis (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose interesting, but not FP. if you're sure of the importance of the pic, try nominating it to VI --SuperJew (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 13 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)