Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg (2)

Lake Bondus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 08:46:45 (UTC)

Reason: Meets three out of four of the featured picture photo manipulation guidelines but point three can easily be forgiven. The only noticeable difference from the original is some cloud-like shading at the ridge of one of the mountains in order to mask some distracting light. This enhances, rather than detracts from the value of the photo in keeping with the spirit of all four guidelines. This is last year's Wikimedia Commons picture of the year and a featured picture on de.wp and fa.wp. Let's quit dragging our heels and elevate this to featured status. I am also putting material together for an article about the lake itself.
Articles in which this image appears: Bondhusbreen, Folgefonna National Park, List of national parks of Norway, Wikimedia Commons
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Heinrich Pniok (User:Alchemist-hp)

Support as nominator --Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Beautiful picture Mydreamsparrow (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose WAY too noisey in the water and cloud. almost looks like they were filled in using MS Paint... Plus unless it can be proven that the background has permanent cloud, then I would like to see this being re-taken on a clear day. It might be a nice looking picture, but it's no-where near FP standard in terms of quality, and EV is lacking with a third of the picture being in cloud. I also take a little offence at the bullying tactics of the demand to "quit dragging our heels"... Not exactly going to get a lot of editors on your side with comments like that... gazhiley 10:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment You should always mention previous nominations of an image if it was nominated before, this one was nominated before and failed. First Nomination. Also the digital manipulation is that it's an HDR image. — raeky t 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support What noise? Anyway, I really do think the push for "Let's not show how things typically look" when it comes to an insistence that weather and clouds never appear in images reduces encyclopedic value for a lot of featured pictures. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just zoom in on any of the water... In particular in the water below the posts on the left... Everything is just so grainy, and you can see the individual pixels... Maybe "Noise" isn't the right term for it, but it looks horrific zoomed in... gazhiley 13:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it possible you was zoomed in? I can't see what you're seeing at full resolution... — raeky t 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well yes, I was zoomed in, hence why I said to zoom in to see what I was refering to... I'll have a look at this later on another device to see if it's maybe the machine I'm on but I doubt that it is as otherwise every other picture would be the same... gazhiley 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Supported this last time it was nominated. I think it has tremendous EV. Dusty777 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The extensive discussion at the last nomination was useful, though it appears Alchemist has taken down the three photos he used to create this one. The feeling was raised last time that the photos used are too far apart from one another in exposure. I believe that circumstance is responsible for the shiny, almost metallic feel of the colors in this image. I also think the boat moved a millimeter or so between exposures, giving it that strange sense of being cut out of its surroundings. The caveat to my vote here is that I am suspicious of this kind of exposure blending anyway. My solution to the problem posed by this landscape: ditch your overly precise digital sensor and use a nice, high-dynamic-range black and white film. Chick Bowen 22:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern black and white photos never pass FPC, as people dislike the intentional removal of information that causes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've passed some... — raeky t 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm well aware. Why do you think I've never nominated (or uploaded) one of my own photographs? Chick Bowen 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support as long as the caption says it's a HDR image. Brandmeister^talk 16:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Lovely picture to hang on your wall, but overly processed and artificial looking for an encyclopaedia FP. Also seems to have limited EV. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister's condition isn't met, as none of the captions mention, that it's a HDR image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]