Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/cows in green field

Cows in green field
I like the strong rural themes in this photo. Rotated version didn't seem to be as popular on the commons, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.
 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Colorful, impressive environment. Houses in background show it's level with the horizon. No rotation needed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rotated version anyway, for picky people. Not me, I either. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4;  &int;  &xi;  &phi;   11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate your zeal and large "improved" template, if you read what I intially said I already have a rotated version. Yours is lower res and has the mountain cropped out. --Fir0002 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Yours... has the mountain cropped out." Eh? Not from here it doesn't... Anyway, that's fine, I'll just IfD the rotation. And, even if you don't like my efforts, I'd appreciate it if you didn't replace my pictures for me. As you said, I didn't read properly, and a rotated version was already supplied. I'll still the original. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4;  &int;  &xi;  &phi;   12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support either. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-5 20:42
 * Support either. I like how it's captured the mountains in the background. Really adds to it. JQF 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Neutralitytalk 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Actually, the house in the background show that it was not level with the horizon. The rotated version makes the house level. Although the rotated version is more "correct" (I think?) the tilted version seems more natural to me, for some reason. Both are great! &#126;MDD4696 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The house is actually not completely level in either image. The thing that everyone is perhaps forgetting is the effect of perspective. The edge of the field is extending diagonally along the photo because it is moving further away, and will therefore appear to be sloping. There is no horizon to refer to so it is impossible to know for sure exactly what 'level' is in this case though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * - What a pleasant scene! The two cows facing the camera on the left look like they were pasted there or something.. though I'm assuming they weren't.  Not sure why it looks like that to me.   drumguy 8800  - speak? 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Magical. I think the rotation is a little over the top though - maybe somewhere in between the two. enochlau (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the first one. Sarah Ewart 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Masterfully done.--Deglr6328 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support second, oppose first Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  D a Gizza Chat  (c) 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support da first one. --Darwinek 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the first ver. Eyesclosed 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support second - there's a teensy bit more sky, which balances the composition nicely. --Janke | Talk 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful and yet so simple. My only problem is that it isn't the right dimensions for a computer wallpaper. - YB 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

