Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Selfoss

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2014 at 22:34:32 (UTC)

Original – Selfoss is a waterfall in the river Jökulsá á Fjöllum located in northern Iceland. It is part of a waterfall system along with Hafragilsfoss & Dettifoss in the river.

Edit – Cropped version to balance out the falls and the sky

Reason: High resolution, very updated
Articles in which this image appears: Selfoss (waterfall), Jökulsá á Fjöllum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Martin Falbisoner

Support as nominator – ///EuroCarGT 22:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — EV, remoteness, stark grandeur. Sca (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jim Carter 11:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Almost all of this is sky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More like half of it. Agree it could be cropped. Sca (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition, great EV. Stormy sky is in good balance with waterfalls, cliffs, river and compliments the turbulent falls. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-b — Whichever version gets most votes. (Prefer cropped.) Sca (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks a bit bland for what should appear stunning --122.172.46.123 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting on this nomination. However, for your !vote to count (see the FPC rules), we ask you to please log in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong lighting. The greens look grey and a stunning view looks a bit boring --Muhammad(talk) 03:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The somber color tones lend to the excellence of this nominee. I like v1 better than v2. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to do this but the quality of this image is terrible. It would be a great shame on FPC if such an image was passed in 2014. --Muhammad(talk) 07:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a little overstated and like a personal opinion. i.e.There's nothing wrong with the quality that can be delineated in concrete terms, like focus, clarity, etc. BTW, the cropped image now looks a bit squashed and crowded. Original has much more depth -- and large sky areas are common place in many fine works of art. Original image puts you outside. Cropped image looks like you're viewing the falls through a window. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rocks and cliffs which should be sharp look like something a paintbrush may produce. The grass is not green because the time is all wrong for such a picture. The original has half of it with useless sky while the crop feels too cramped. IMO, it is not possible to accurately reveal the reality of such a scene in single exposure and perhaps a bit of post processing and NR has led to the softness in addition to the diffraction softening --Muhammad(talk) 06:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grass not green enough? Rocks not sharp enough? Right... You forgot to mention that the "uselss sky" is not blue enough. Image depicts mist around falls nicely, while details of the rest of the cliffs are clear. Let's not forget the EV either. Image accurately depicts falls and surrounding geology, regardless of the 'less than green' grass. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont doubt the EV, never did. If the image was taken at a different time, it would be both beautiful and encyclopedic. --Muhammad(talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just said you never doubted the EV yet in the same breath dismiss the EV because the image was taken at the wrong time. i.e.The grass isn't green enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even a rotten quality picture has EV in that it is better than nothing at all. Now this image shows the waterfalls and it does that ok. If the light were better, it would do a better job at that. Taking images just a few minutes after the solar noon when the light is harshest is not a good idea. See this image taken at a different time--Muhammad(talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Prefer original. 86.171.42.146 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Re "boring" somber hues, let's not forget that Iceland is just below the Arctic Circle (at the same latitude as the Bering Strait). One wouldn't expect a waterfall in northeastern Iceland to look like one in some verdant spot, say Hawaii. I quite like the stark tones. Sca (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google images, Iceland landscapes --Muhammad(talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this means there are some lush landscapes in Iceland? Well, I realize Iceland is warmed by ocean currents, and isn't as cold as Greenland. But I still like this image. Sca (talk)

Sorry, but with the bizarre lighting that one looks gimmicky to me (and has little EV). Sca (talk)

Support original: Once again Sca reminds me that comparing the lack of a lush landscape at the Arctic Circle is an unfair criticism. I prefer the original; I am never in favour of the cropping, which leaves the view unbalanced. Fylbecatulous talk 15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop. Yann (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions/ either. If the grass were any more green or the rocks and water less gray, it would not convey the same sense of dark emotion and coldness, for which I like it very much. KDS4444^Talk 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Selfoss July 2014.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]