Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Susquehanna River
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2013 at 17:08:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality picture that brilliantly captures the subject of the article as well as its surrounding landscape.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Susquehanna River, Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, French Azilum
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places
- Creator
- Originally posted to Flickr as Meander
- Support as nominator --Analogue Kid (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice, rustic scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose reluctantly. Nice composition, but - may be it's just me - doesn't seem to be sharp and also looks a bit hazy. Nikhil (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not you. It's as if every molecule in the frame were fused together. It gives me the creeps, it's not natural. Over-NR? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is definitely post-processed to increase saturation. Chick Bowen 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that so bad when other manipulations, such as inventing new bits of sky, removing unwanted objects, distorting perspective, and so on, seem to be permitted? For a supposedly factual picture, I think that changing the actual content is "worse" than fiddling a bit with the colour balance. 81.159.110.248 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not bad in itself, it's just overdone in this case in my opinion. Small tweaks in color balance are fine and not a big deal. Chick Bowen 04:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. I would point out, though, that according to the shadows the sun is low in the sky, and I believe that this is contributing to the lighting effect and to the colours, making the colours seem deeper and warmer. 86.169.36.168 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not bad in itself, it's just overdone in this case in my opinion. Small tweaks in color balance are fine and not a big deal. Chick Bowen 04:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that so bad when other manipulations, such as inventing new bits of sky, removing unwanted objects, distorting perspective, and so on, seem to be permitted? For a supposedly factual picture, I think that changing the actual content is "worse" than fiddling a bit with the colour balance. 81.159.110.248 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Oversaturation, burnt highlights, poor image quality at full res. Not upto FP standards. JFitch (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)