Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stag on hill

Stag on hill

Image of a stag on hilltop brilliantly framed by the sun in background

I believe this image of the stag on the hilltop should be a featured picture because it is a very striking picture, the sunset in the background frames the stag and makes it stand out. -Is used in Deer page

Nominate and support, definatly has the wow factor Firedemon 09:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Has just 5 edits Broken Segue 22:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Support, Support! this is an amazing picture. Cyberlettuce 10:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Has less than 20 edits more than half are involved with FPC voting. Broken Segue 13:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice picture - quite evocative A curate's egg 10:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry put the note on the wrong user. Broken Segue 17:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being the owner of this pic, I am flattered it has been put up for possible featured candidate. Electricmoose- Electrifying 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but then I'm not sure I get the joke (nor the relationship between some of the voters here). Strange how those clouds got behind the sun. -- Solipsist 12:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly out of focus
Oh and I forgot to mention it is probably also a copyright violation. Whilst User:Fir0002's sunset is GFDL, I think that still requires attribution when used in a composite. -- Solipsist 12:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't konw if I can dictate what to do with my photo after it's been released into the GFDL, but that image really is using it badly. I wouldn't have minded if it was a good composite, but it's such a poor, blatantly obvious fake. I think every photographer likes to know what people are using their photos for, but to see mine used in this fashion is quite distressing. It's like seeing your photo after it had been through some pretty heavy "liquifying" in th Photoshop.--Fir0002 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Res is to low and a it's bit blurry. Also we should check the possible copyvio. Broken Segue 13:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sun in front of clouds is distracting (and impossible). --Spangineer ∞ 15:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, for all the reasons above plus it's not even attached to an article. --CVaneg 20:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's becuse I removed it. Broken Segue 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Dislike it intensely. --Fir0002 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - because most of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. obviously artificial. Thue | talk 09:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - quite like it in a folksey sort of way.InTheFullnessOfTime 10:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User has just 36 edits, several of which are on various deletion vote pages. — Chameleon 12:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete fake pic! — Chameleon 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose — nothing against composites, but it's not a shining example of a composite pic. Pardon the pun. --Ds13 19:37, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Oppose WB 00:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose out of focus and not very good composite image anyway Lisiate 01:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Archived. The image contains at least one element that is a copyvio, so the license is not appropriate. -- Solipsist 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)