Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpg

File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2017 at 15:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Flat lighting on most of the scene (or else you've lifted the shadows too much) means the mountains are all middle-grey. I'm not seeing the exceptional light from our FP natural scenes like this. And nor is there exceptional detail -- the image is really soft and especially so in the corners. I have to downsize considerably to get a sharp image. I think Wolfgang Moroder, you should get that lens fixed, as your camera is capable of so much better image quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The lense was fixed in Munich a few months ago. Thanks for your comment --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If it was "fixed" before you took this image, then I don't understand. File:Cisles Muntijela Forces de Siëles.jpg is similar -- the right fifth of the image is blurred. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin, who is right about the lifted shadows. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The "flat light" is a matter of taste and a choice. It's exactly that what I like in this "watercolour" picture.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)