Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blejsko jezero (Lake Bled in autumn).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 17:36:58 (UTC)

Original – Lake Bled in autumn

Reason: Good and illustrative shot of Lake Bled, with Bled Castle and Karawanks.
Articles in which this image appears: Lake Bled
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Petar Milošević

Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose – Too much foreground for my taste. Sca (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – excessive manipulation, criteria 8. The image was shot on a sunny midday, but ~~manipulated to look like an evening shot~~ the manipulation makes the image look like an evening shot (shadow on buildings). Also, given the other images, I am not sure this image adds significant EV. Bammesk (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bammesk: This is shot around 1h before sunset over there, since you forgot its winter, sun is comming from south where hills are, on a cloudy day which give better colors since clouds werent strong. Which shot this one or could you show similar ? If you check Island and see trees, its obviously sunset is about to come. In 1h-1,5 h there is sunset. So would you like to reconsider your statement ?! Or i put original here as well ? Situtation where i was standing was already in shadow, with some lake also which can be seen on picture. And i even planned to be there at sunset. --PetarM (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kamera of Bled Lake, and original file. Criteria 8... putting false statement is something like lying to all here. Be careful Bammersk. --PetarM (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I wrote, but the language could have been better. That's probably why you said "false statement". I have clarified the language. I think the original file looks better. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC) . . . since you warned me about lying, which I think is absurd, here are some details: 1- the angle of shadows is 30 degrees, hence midday (BTW the image timestamp is 1:40pm, which is false), 2- the sun is casting a shadow, hence sunny, 3- the image is manipulated (in other words [1], adjusted in software), 4- the deep blue color of the sky and foreground makes the image look like an evening shot, my opinion, sort of similar to this image, 5- the combination of the 30 degree shadows and the deep blue colors makes the image look unnatural enough, in my opinion, to call the adjustment excessive.[reply]

Oppose the main feature of the lake, the church, is almost indiscernible in the far distance. As per Sca's comment above, the image is mainly foreground of the sea. MurielMary (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per above. Too much foreground. Mostly just water. Mattximus (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a picture of a lake. It is not suprising that there is a lot of water. What do you expect? I think it is a lovely composition. The only criticism I would make is that it's not very clear that the church is on an island rather than a peninsula jutting into the lake. Even so, it is a good picture. I don't know about any manipulation. The lighting looks natural enough to me. 86.185.218.189 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. The focus is on generic water, not the lake, its specific features and its setting. --ELEKHH^T 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, TBH, anyone who thinks this is a poor composition really should not be casting votes here. 86.185.218.120 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]