Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fog scene

Fog Scene [edit]

This image is unlike many other fog photos. It has a definite artistic touch and it makes good use of shadows, light, the fog, the white grass, and the trees. Additionally, it clearly shows what fog is and what it does visually.

This photo appears in Fog. It was taken by Vontafeijos, Tate Strickland.

Nominate and support. - P-unit 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it just me, or does the land appear to be uneven? Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on what you mean by uneven! - Adrian Pingstone 08:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The road and the grass line appear to rise from left to right - would it be possible to tilt it a bit or measure it to find out if I'm just imagining things? :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is indeed rising from left to right. Might just be because the land is rising, but it's probably the photo being taken at a small angle. Enochlau 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it needs some tilting, but it looks loads better than a lot of common fog photos I've seen so far. Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As above. Enochlau 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the composition with the house in the back. Also, I am not sure if this is fog, mist, or overexposure. The river in the right is clearly visible in the distance -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no river anywhere within a five mile radius of where this picture was taken... also, I've fixed the slight tilting. By the way, it's definitely fog... light fog, but fog nonetheless. -Vontafeijos 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Not very much visible fog. I think there would be better ones out there. --Fir0002 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there were you would be opposing it as being to blurry. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 16:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not fog, this is a light mist! Glaurung 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I definitely like the light and the contrast in the photo, and nice job fixing the slant. Although I agree it is more of a light mist and as such would be better suited for a different article, it is, nontheless, still a good picture. Wubblu 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further consideration, you're probably right... it's a bit more like mist than fog. It's now in that article. Thanks! -Vontafeijos 22:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The photo clearly illustrates the concept of mist in a way that is striking and appealing. Camerafiend 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to Chris 73's comments: I think the background actually helps show how the fog/mist changes visibility, and helps the composition. Additionally, the think that you call the river in the background does not hurt the picture in any way and does not distract the reader from the mist/fog, but instead adds depth and makes the photo more interesting. -P-unit 04:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a superb example of modern photographic skill. InkPunk 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I just don't like this photo too much, and I'm not exactly sure why. It's not that striking - perhaps it's the house that's bothering me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: For the record, that's a library in the background, not a house. -Vontafeijos 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, would be more siuted for Mist, but there are better pics already. --Dschwen 13:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, It's like a party in my eye and only attractive people are invited. Dyntyne 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]