Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Clearwater

Lake Clearwater

••***...whatever... this image despite some of it's shortcomings evokes further images of maybe ... a beach house down by the shore, a small jetty and row-boat, sunsets on evening strolls and picnics, a lazy afternoon/evening fishing with BBQ's and friends - bird-watching and digiscoping with that new Zeiss scope T* coated BUT hold on... is there broadband here? Peace then and a much slower pace. A lot of time to work on another picture for these pages. Maybe try and PhotoShop this picture so it will please every person's eyes that trace these pages... I don't think the person who took this pictures really cares too much what we think - we all have different agendas and dreams. Now where's my rod and digicsope?

This picture is a very beautiful capture of Lake Clearwater, Ontario, Canada. It is crisp and very pretty.

Nominate and support. - Mike 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect people will find it washed out and a bit out of focus. Debivort 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain?Mike 03:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose - The colours look bleached (pale), and the picture is not as sharp as it could be. EvilStorm 1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lake_Clearwater&action=edit&section=10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen far better lake shots, and besides, the focus of the photo seems to be that tree, rather than the lake itself. I also agree with what Debivort said. —DO'Neil 06:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sadly, no, my breath is in fact, not taken.--Deglr6328 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I have a unique sense of beauty. Love the sarcasm, Deglr6382. Mike 08:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nowhere near FP standard, crisp (by which I mean in focus) it most certainly is not, uninteresting, low contrast - Adrian Pingstone 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As mentioned above, the colors are washed out and the contrast is very low. Camerafiend 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed out. Circeus 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you could photoshop it to make the colors a bit more vivid and the picture more crisp, I would vote to support. --Ironchef8000 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Pretty ordinary --Fir0002 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose. The original isn't crisp enough and the edit is too saturated. Thryduulf 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mike.. don't let all these opposes get you down, k? The edit is unbelievably over-saturated.. both versions are unfortunately not crisp at all. Also poor composition with the tree right there. Consider the thirds rule. This also appears to be taken with either a camera phone or a 35mm (or disposable) and scanned in at a low dpi. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture was indeed taken with a disposable camera and scanned at (300DPI?). I never intended it to be a featured picture candidate, just a pretty picture. silsor 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above. enochlau (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]