Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 14.jpg

File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 14.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2014 at 06:36:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 14.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 14.jpg

•  Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment marvelous mood! But could you please correct the horizon? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Correct the horizon? I which way? The image is not tilted. --XRay ^talk 10:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed Anyway. A new image with a corrected horizon was uploaded. IMO it looks more naturally. The appearance of the image is better. Thanks for your advice. --XRay ^talk 10:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Nice photo, but is it dirt on your lens at the left edge of the photo (see note). It does not look like foggy air. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is real fog. There was a bank of fog through the trees. --XRay ^talk 10:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I just can't accept that this kind of exposure, lighting and motif are representative of our finest works. It is as if one very bad back lit tree photo got promoted and inexplicably ended up as a POTY finalist that everyone thinks they need one now. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment  :Saffron Blaze, if a picture ended up as a POTY finalist, it is not a bad image. You sound like one of the 20th century dictators: there is my opinion and there is wrong opinion. Others have long forgotten the image you are talking about but you are still disturbed by it. Poor Saffron. You and Colin had a nice self-praising conversation at Colin's talk page. Hope you feel better now. But don't forget that POTY is vox populi. You don't decide what is good or bad, people do. If you don't agree with people, it means you are bad reviewer. --194.150.65.40 22:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like to defend this nomination, I really like the picture very much. Does exposure always have to be "correct"? And if it were in this case, wouldn't the whole atmosphere be gone just like the fog only one hour later? Sometimes it appears to me that FP is a captive of Straight Photography suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Give Pictorialism a chance - at least occasionally ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Do you honestly believe I need a lecture on Straight Photography or Pictorialism? I have supported all kinds of art here at FPC and have in fact fostered the promotion of works other than landscapes, buildings and bugs. What I have not done is lower my standards in response to the onslaught of mediocre images being offered here. As an example of the genre you are espousing this is truly lacking. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Fine then. Let's agree to disagree here. I really didn't intend to raise a personal quarrel... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Agree with Martin. Yann (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Generally agree with Saffron, sorry. Also large PC artifact left at bottom. --DXR (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, what do mean with "PC artifact"? --XRay ^talk 06:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The white arc at the bottom, approx. in the middle. View the image on a black background and you'll see it. --DXR (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Sorry for my carelessness. It is now corrected.--XRay ^talk 10:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose I see what the photographer was thinking, but I agree with Saffron that this is too underexposed. Also, the location of the horizon line just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1. Exposure 2. The fog on the right, unfortunately, spoils the photo as it looks more like a smudge on the camera lens. Basically it wasn't a good angle. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per AK. I'm not sure the atmosphere at the time has translated well here. -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- Smial (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment IMO a part of this discussion is ugly. I do not understand Safron's opinion too, but of course I accept his vote. And please: It's only an image. And the discussion should relate only to the picture - in a friendly way.--XRay ^talk 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Shadowed areas are underexposed IMO, this kind of photo is certainly hard to realize correctly. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)