Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zugersee

Zugersee

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 16:16:14 (UTC)

Reason: A quality image of a romantic sight in Switzerland.
Articles in which this image appears: Lake Zug
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Simonizer

Support as nominator – The Herald 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hey, I like that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Nice atmosphere — nette Stimmung. Sca (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Am I the only one who feels that this is a bit dark? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is kinda dark — that's part of its charm. Sca (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Sca, it with the weather would seem that it is dark, by design. Nice composition.talk→ WPPilot 02:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soooooooooo many halos, it's almost like looking at a picture full of Angels... This is horrendously dark for me, with the side effect being the halo visable around all foreground objects. I don't particularly care what "atmosphere" was intended - this is supposed to be a collection of Wikipedia's best work, and this is far from it. Needs to be lighter, focus needs to be sharper, and it needs to have any notion that "romantic atmosphere" is a way of waiving the need to be a well taken photograph. And what is a "romantic sight" anyways?! This is a bench by a lake... Unless you have a fetish for benches, and dark gloomy lake scenes get your motor running, then this cannot be described as romantic... Any above supports really need to re-assess what this forum is about... gazhiley 14:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, but that is exactly the point. I do particularly care for "atmosphere", whatever sort. Atmosphere is a tricky thing, it's not for free and indicatives that there is something in the picture. Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each to their own Hafspajen, but for me I understand this forum to be about quality pictures, which this is not. There's virtually no detail on the water, the leaves on the trees are out of focus, there's a large shadow in the foreground of the bench and tree, it's so dark and lacking in detail you cannot tell what the bench is made of, etc etc... Need I go on with this list?! Each one of the issues I have just listed are echo'd in many many FP failures, some of which are in this current selection of nom's... I'm absolutely flabbergasted that this has had even one single support (beyond the nom) and yet other nom's get blasted for such things as "little specs of pixilation", or the face of a person in the background being out of focus etc... Farcical... gazhiley 15:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen please either explain the relevence of this additional picture to this nomination, or remove it. It has no connection to the nominated picture that I can see. gazhiley 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each to their ow, Gazzy. I think it is

. There are details in the foreground - there is a bench also in the foreground - not only a shade, like in the other picture, where it was a problem. There it was nothing BUT a shade in the foreground. Here you have an object you stand behind. I think the composition rocks, it is a very clever composition. It resembles a window opening towards a perspective. Also it is well balanced and the small details respond to each other harmoniously. I know about the lightning issues, and so on, but not all pictures has to be perfectly up lighted like on a dissection bench. Life gives us such moments, why not a picture of it? Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also - one more thing - please restrain from this kind of expressions: flabbergasted that this has had even one single support (beyond the nom) and yet other nom's get blasted - and - Farcical- and such. One editor ( and it's many socks ) were blocked for such use of language. Try to add neutral comments. This should be a nice amicable place kept in a companionable, comradely, cordial spirit. Hafspajen (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comradely,' eh? Hafs, you Bolshevik!

Sca (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{Bolshevik! I expressing my shock, comrade Sca!!! Hafspajen (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Just expressing my shock - no issues with that Hafspajen - I'm certainly no sock. And I have no issue with pictures like this, but FP is no place for them. gazhiley 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Yes, I know that!

Hafspajen (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Gazhiley, you took the words out of my mouth --Muhammad(talk) 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree it is a bit dark but the picture is about the dark weather itself. I don't see any issue other than the darkness. Jim Carter 19:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that I don't see the flaws in this photo as gazhiley does. I see some detail in the water. I'd just like to mention two things I like about this picture: 1) Most photos of lakes and mountains are taken on a beautiful, sunny day. It's unusual to see a photo of a beautiful place like this on an overcast day. I think the lighting in the sky is quite interesting. 2) I also think the green of the leaves on the blue-gray background is quite beautiful. I'll let others decide whether this photo rises to the level of a featured picture. CorinneSD (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For me, this is more "tasteful postcard" than "encyclopedia article". It's a very emotive picture, but I'm not convinced that it actually shows the lake in the way you would want it to be shown for an encyclopedia article. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand J's logic, but would suggest that not all illustrations in encyclopedia articles need be staid portrayals of the subject — especially with the capacity the digital age offers for images. Sca (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This image has a lot of feeling/atmosphere, and as an artistic photo has strong merit (probably why it’s featured on Commons). However, between the empty bench (first thing to grab my attention), the cloudy sky, mountains, trees, and foreground, the main subject of the photo, the lake (for which this image is supposed to be providing featurable EV) seems to account for maybe 15-20% of the composition. IMO, while contributing artistically, this image is not adding to to the article's encyclopedic value, the primary purpose of the image here.--Godot13 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]