Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Panorámica de Las Médulas.jpg

Image:Panorámica de Las Médulas.jpg featured

• Self nomination I'm not the author but I uploaded it for him.--Piolinfax 11:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I have just replaced the lower res pic with the original higher res version. --Piolinfax 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support I love the contrast between the misty background and the incandescence of the reddish mountain in the sunset light. --Piolinfax 11:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support--Lycaon 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support-- Tatoute 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - MPF 13:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - great colours and composition. But it's leaning extremely (look at the fog) --SehLax 13:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't leaning; fog often looks sloping like this. The trees are a better indication; if anything, they are leaning the other way (and look badly so in the revised version below) - MPF 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Support pfctdayelise 13:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Briseis 15:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- YolanC 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Calderwood 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Rex 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral nice pic, but sky i rather blown, sloping need to gets fixed badly and the uploader states that only a low quality version was uploaded. Why? Isn't policy to always upload higest res and quality. 2.13MB doesn't seem much. We have pics exceeding 8MB. I'll gladly change my vote if these concerns get addressed.--Dschwen 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed my oppose to neutral since my complaints were addressed, but I'm still not enthusiastic about the pic :-) --Dschwen 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about the as-big-as-possible policy. I'll replace it asap (I have to wait for the original to be sent to me) and if the author (who has got 2 other very similar pics) states that the sloping is a fact (I agree it looks like it but I am still in doubt... you should see the place in location, and the horizon is not the hills themselves but behind them) I'll rotate it accordingly, as well. Thanx for your helpful impressions :) --Piolinfax 10:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose Quality seems ok and I can live with burned out sky, but the sloping is really annoying --che 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Urban 05:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Burned sky, composition not outstanding -- Fabien1309 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

* Neutral Calderwood 11:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) can change your vote but can't vote twice -- Lycaon 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the former vote escaped my attention. --Calderwood 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Support -- Tvpm 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is not really interesting. --Dada 11:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe without the sloping it would be better, but it´s good anyway.--Wikiwert 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support original version - Samsara 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Calderwood 09:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Panorámica de Las Médulas edit.jpg - (Edited version) not featured

• I tried to fix the leaning (it really was leaning if you look at the fog) and did some lighting corections --SehLax 13:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- YolanC 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose The fog is not a very reliable feature but, anyway, when having a look to the main patches of fog in the original pic with the Gimp guidelines (which are totally parallel to the top of the pic), one can see that they are in different levels (a logical thing in such a hilly environment, by the way). I edited three pictures rotating the original 0,5; 0,75 and 2 degrees anti-clockwise and then I checked the fog with the guidelines again. It's then when the fog seems to be going up from left to right. Check it yourselves. If it finally had to be edited, I wouldn't rotate it more than 0'3 degrees. The other similar pictures Rafael did support this view. The so-called sloping is just an optical effect. Given the fact that this picture is likely to be used for encyclopedic (and not artistic or aesthetic) purposes, my "ballot" goes for the non edited version. --Piolinfax 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support i like this one better --Quasipalm 04:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)