Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2015 -- 9923.jpg

File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2015 -- 9923.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2016 at 03:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2015 -- 9923.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2015 -- 9923.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created and uploaded by Dietmar Rabich (User:XRay) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I didn't check beforehand on whether XRay wanted this nominated; I simply like this photo. I enjoy moving my eye around it, like the fact that it's backlit, and I'm willing to accept the somewhat harsh light as it is for the effect it gives. I predict that at least one of you will probably consider it too complicated - that's OK; I think complexity is just fine if it's fun and works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful autumn leaves and great colors. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, it's really a nice picture, but I don't think it's special enough to be FP. There are lots of other XRay's pictures which deserve to be featured, but this isn't one of these. In other words: No WOW. --Code (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Simple difference in opinion. At that level, it's kind of like who turns you on: To me, this is a really excellent photo and special. But if you don't feel that way, you don't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Thank you for the nomination, Ikan Kekek. --XRay ^talk 11:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking the photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nice enough photo, but on what basis should it be FP? Charles (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - How would you like me to address that more? In my opinion, it's a great composition if you let your eyes move around the arabesque at will, which from what I remember my painter father telling me is the way people have traditionally looked at paintings for hundreds of years (starting in the Middle Ages), but which he told me is not taught in art schools so much anymore, because it has nothing to do with tight, flat realism or conceptual art (styles which he didn't respect, but that's neither here nor there). I'm not sure how you and other highly skilled photographers look at photos, so I'm not sure what it is you're looking for and not looking for. But my feeling is, if you don't enjoy looking around the picture frame, opposing a feature is fair, but if you're not taking over 10 seconds at least to look around the leaves, up the trunks, back around the leaves, etc., etc., I think you're missing the point. I don't know if this remark is likely to be at all helpful as advocacy for this picture to whomever for whatever reason doesn't like it, but it's the best I can do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation of your thinking. I wouldn't agree that we should feature an image like this with no botanical identification. Even if it was identified I don't think it satisfies "most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special" Charles (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Botanical information would be useful if this were being considered for an encyclopedic article, and I would certainly support adding it, but I'm judging this as an artistic composition, and to me, it is special. It's fine that we disagree about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Just added "chestnut" (and categories) as batonical information. --XRay ^talk 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Pleasing colors, and I see how you might have thought this had FP potential when you hit the shutter, but the fact is this is too chaotic to be one for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition,good light,beautiful color no very wow but i like --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Captures the spirit of autumn perfectly. Getting a good shot of fall foliage on its own is not easy, and this is better than anything I've tried. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 00:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants