Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kimmeridge, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg

File:Kimmeridge, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg
Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 14:21:54 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's detailed and interesting, showing clearly, as per the Abbotsbury nom, both the surrounding landscape and the village itself from a nearby vantage point. It should be noted that the panorama is not tilted or warped, these are the slopes of the land - the horizon is just visible in the background behind the sea cliffs and it is horizontal.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kimmeridge
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no doubt that this excellently shows the village, and what a nifty little village it is, but I have to object on some technical grounds, the horizon is very wonky and doesn't look natural with that slant, theres some pretty serious distortion from such a large panorama, (I presume a fish-eye lens?). The overcast sky is less than ideal. It's not necessary to have large distortions in panorama's and in landscapes like this I think it's not good. Excellent illustration for the article but I don't think it matches the quality of some of our other panorama FPs. — raeky  t  19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -Sigh-. You obviously didn't read my explanation with the nomination. It was taken as a panorama with a telephoto lens at 300mm, not even close to fisheye. The total angle of view is somewhat similar to a 50-100mm lens, I would guess, which is close to what our eyes perceive naturally. What you perceive as pretty serious distortion is actually the natural slopes of the surrounding countryside. As I said, hunt for the faint horizon behind the cliffs and you'll see that it's not significantly distorted. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No retraction or response? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good image of the village, and I like the sheep. The only distortion problems that I see are on the far left and far right foreground, which don't distract from the principal subject of the photo. Gray skies are normal and even predominant in some places in the world so you could say that they're more typical and encyclopedic than a clear blue sky for a location. The slanted skyline may be the natural form of the land in this area. Pine(talk) 19:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - As Diliff says above, it's not warped. I agree, as evidenced by the trees being straight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is a good example of a picture that should be FP on WP but might struggle on Commons. At first glance it doesn't strike you as a particularly eye-catching picture. But it does "illustrat[e the] article content particularly well". It shows the location of Kimmeridge just inland of the coast, depicting it as a small village surrounded by farmland. The detail is such that every house, car and sheep can be clearly seen. There's enough resolution available to crop on just the village if one wanted to. One negative is that the sea and horizon are faint. Colin°Talk 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not a picture postcard weather but a outstanding and excellent shoot of this picturesque scenery. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Well captures the village setting. -- ELEKHHT 22:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be a dark blur just right of the tower at the sea cliff on the right side of image. Rmhermen (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks like shrubbery as far as I can tell. Pine✉ 06:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see what he refers to but I'm not sure what it is. It's actually mostly in the sea above and to the right of the shrubbery and is quite diffused, but it's more of a darkening than blurring. I guess it's probably a blending artefact as I didn't intentionally burn that area. It's so minor that I'm not that bothered about fixing it though. Maybe when I have a moment. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK maybe I see what you're talking about. Could it be the result of a fingerprint on your lens? Pine✉ 08:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't think so. It's not in any of the original constituent photos so it must be a blending artefect as I mentioned. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strangely it's probably more visible at thumbnail than at full res. It could be something like smoke from a small fire behind the ridgeline, but not if it's not visible in the original individual file/s. --jjron (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)