Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg

File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 09:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg

•  Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great work. Yann (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support WOW --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Look mystical -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, this place was mystical. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --Cephas (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose sadly. I want it to be sharper. :( -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice non-metallic shot ;-) --Muhammad (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks like over-processed / unsharp. Ggia (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Schade, sensationelle Stimmung, Farben und Motivauswahl aber leider zu unscharf für ein FP :-( --Böhringer (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral In der Tat. Schau doch mal, ob du hier mit Hochpassschärfen noch ein wenig rausholen kannst. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  Soll ich etwa den gewollt unscharfen Vordergrund nachschärfen? Das Boot ist scharf, der Gletscher ist scharf. Was soll denn da noch nachgeschärft werden? Hochpassschärfen kenne ich ansonsten gut. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  Der Fokus liegt ja in der Bildmitte - also auf Höhe der Pfeiler. Auch das Boot könnte im hinteren Bereich noch etwas Schärfe vertragen. Habe soeben mal mit Radius 2.0 und Ebenenfüllmethode Weiches Licht inklusive Maskierung auf die Bereiche getestet - schau es dir selbst an. Die Krux ist hier eindeutig der Nebel. Knackscharf ist dadurch hier leider nichts, daher auch die Gegenstimmen. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  Die Unschärfe unterstreicht das Nebulöse, das Unwirkliche, das Mystische. Das Hochpasschärfen habe ich ausprobiert, aber dadurch kommt wieder mehr Rauschen in die Wolken. Ansonsten habe ich genung Arbeit in das Bild gesteckt. Das reicht mir. Mit den Contras kann ich leben. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --AHURA,PERSIA ♠ 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The retouching is too much. Makes it look fake. Steven Walling • talk 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  please visit the real place ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 10:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Vassil (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The retouching is too much (I don't understand german or...)--Miguel Bugallo 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural