Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 201-203 HDR.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline. All by me, Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Lucien (es·m·com) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is great. Not the processing. Oversaturated, shadow too heavily recovered on the right (strange that it's only on the right). Some blue fringing. Maybe this can be fixed - Benh (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Benh: I have finetuned the luminosity of the shadowed areas and reduced the frindge. I haven't touched the saturation because I believe that the picture is pretty realistic and I have applied the standard configuration that I have been using for years. Btw, I think that this one is probably the most solid FP candidate I had, ever. That makes me sadly believe that I will always get your opposing votes. It is fine to challenge other FP-experienced photographers, but if this picture is not an FP then I got lost... Poco2 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- A configuration doesn't work the same for all sources of picture. I still maintain the processing screwed up (a little) the otherwise great scene. Now for my voting scheme : you flood FPC with candidates and it doesn't appear to me that you apply a strict filtering before ur pic gets the candidate label (and ur very own "solid FP candidate" comment seems to confirm that). FPC has to be special, and I hope it remains so. Don't be surprised to get opposes from me as I'm the kind of demanding nitpicking guy (I try to remain "fair" though). As for why I oppose this one vs neutral the stair nom. which had issues as well, I consider they may have forbid you from getting ur tripod out which I consider a mitigating reason (but u didn't share), while a processing can be done again and again. No mitigating reason : much higher expectations. - Benh (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Benh:::I think that you misunderstood my comment. This picture is probably one of my best pictures, ever, and will stay as my desktop image for a while. You cannot expect that I nominate only those pictures that, I believe, are the best picture have ever I shot. In that case I'd show up here every 2 years at most. I have made some numbers and checked all FPCs initiated by me in Commons and checked the result of them: 162 out of 289 were successful (56% success rate). It may be poor for you, but I'm satisfied with that. You may call that flooding, that's a tough word. Flooding would be 2 nominations per day but there are rules, that I agree with, to avoid that. I see it from a different point of view, out of my last 5 nominations 0% were successful and that is not normal, and no, I don't think that I have lowered the bar for FPCs. Regarding your comment about "mitigating reasons", that surprised me, especially after your statement in a recent nomination saying "only the result counts". Finally, I'd like to remind you again that comments like "cheap", "trivial", "randomed" are out of place when you judge the work of others (not the case in this nominations, but in others). I find that kind of comments unrespectful and discouraging. You can be a nitpicking guy but stay respectful Poco2 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Benh: I have finetuned the luminosity of the shadowed areas and reduced the frindge. I haven't touched the saturation because I believe that the picture is pretty realistic and I have applied the standard configuration that I have been using for years. Btw, I think that this one is probably the most solid FP candidate I had, ever. That makes me sadly believe that I will always get your opposing votes. It is fine to challenge other FP-experienced photographers, but if this picture is not an FP then I got lost... Poco2 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think what Benh meant is that if this is the best FP image you've ever taken (and was taken in August last year), why have you nominated so many inferior images recently? I know you probably have quite a large backlog of images that you haven't had time to process and upload and I can see this was uploaded just prior to nomination, but I think his point is still fair - it's probably better to nominate your best images as a priority. Anyway, of course it's your choice, but I have noticed that many of your nomination images have not been as consistently good recently. Diliff (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have a big backlog, that is getting smaller now due to missing equipment, but still go around 2000 pictures from December/January. Sometimes I also wait for contests like WLE or WLM. Poco2 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Come on Poco... yes the result counts. But I still do know when it's impossible to do otherwise (and I still don't know for the stairs, just out of curiosity). Regarding the result counts nom, it would be just a matter of waiting spring or summer, but I thought it was clear to all... And yes I may be a bit too sincere, and that's because I don't play game or whatever. None of my negative comments are free. If there's any (there must be some which has slipped), then I'm very sorry. - Benh (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support Amazing colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support Actually per Benh - from a technical point of view. Support-wise per others... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Awed The technical mistakes, such as they are, give it an otherworldly quality, like a sci-fi novel cover. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Kikos (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support--Dэя-Бøяg 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support Very great wow factor. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with Benh too, the processing is not as good as it could be. Maybe you're right that the saturation is accurate (it does seem a bit too much for me though), but there are haloes around the cave where the sky begins. How is this processed? Is it an exposure blend, or did you recover shadows and highlights? In any case, I agree with you, the wow of the scene makes up for these technical deficiencies. This image fixes the main complaint I had about your previous nomination of this waterfall: the cropped pool. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support wow --· Favalli ⟡ 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support When I first saw this my reaction was that Poco had leant on the saturation slider. But Googling for the subject shows it can often be lit spectacularly and colourfully, though there are plenty times also when the light is not good. Good catch. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support But I somewhat agree with the comments above. Perhaps a slight change in balance towards wow over quantity would be good. More images like this, please. --DXR (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Stryn (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support Amazing colors and nature feeling, Wow Poco, nice shoot --The_Photographer (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support ----Hafspajen 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks over processed to me. Seems good for my Imac screen saver, and I'm afraid it is not a compliment. I find it a bit "too much" and agressive, sorry (oversaturated ?). But it is just a matter of taste, and I understand the lot of supports.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose --Very nice composition but technicaly missed: the foreground, which takes 3/4 of the picture (no problem with that), is out of focus and too bright, turning it too proeminent, while the subject, the waterfall gets lost over the background. Also: you used Lightroom, so please correct CA. Sting (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support A bit oversaturated imo, but very nice anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural