Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Preikestolen

Preikestolen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 13:03:32 (UTC)

Lysefjorden fjord

in the background

Reason: High quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Image page needs English translation. The image caption here should suffice and is actually more informative than the original description anyway. Could you please check image pages are in English before nominating for enwiki? --jjron (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'll check it next time. Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Z 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having been there I can say for a certainty that the rock is not tilted that way... look at the horizon.
Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Photographed from this position is the normal view. I shot a similar picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Preikestolen_Lysefjord.jpg as you. But by this point, there is a new perspective. (Sorry, i use googletranslater) --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Strong composition is let down by what appears to be both excessive image noise and noise reduction. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is why: http://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/7768977738/in/set-72157630411785024/lightbox/
Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - Very nice. Also, Saffron Blaze, I'm not quite sure I understand you. The horizon in this photo is straight, just as in yours. I don't see any differences in the perspective of the rock other than where the photographer was standing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As demonstrated by Saffron Blaze's link, this isn't the best available composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Going to have to oppose on same reason as Nick-D... But I'm slightly disappointed that Saffron isn't offering up the image he linked too with a license that we could use... — raeky t 23:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but it is already under license through Getty. I'll see what I can do though.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - We need your beautiful works. :) JKadavoor Jee 05:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Jee, you are too kind. Unfortunately any I have from this angle would be considered a "similar" to those under contract. As such I am obligated not to offer them for license to anyone else, including Wikis.
      Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Their contract is that strict? Is there an online viewable version of the contract? — raeky t 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        http://www.aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf
        Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]