Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG

File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG

•  Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I gave a shot at translating the description; if anyone can improve it, please do.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Excellent, however what spoils the perfect atmosphere and composition is that the stool is out of centre. -- H005 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Funny, I've just looked it up in Google Earth - I passed this place last year in July, and I can't recall seeing a chapel there - it must have been built shortly thereafter. A pity I missed it. -- H005 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The flaw in the bottom right corner (which I missed before) plus the above mentioned issue amkes me change my mind to  Oppose, sorry. A pity for such a great image. H005 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Back to  Neutral after cropping. -- H005 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support wow --kaʁstn 12:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Econt (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great use of lighting! --Calibas (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great shot, but IMO the technical quality is not sufficient. There's some noise in the darker parts and a very obvious flaw in the bottom right corner. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose After long deliberation, I'll have to go with NEUROtiker on this one. The flaw in the bottom right corner is simply unacceptable for an FP. Also, the camera appears to have been a little overworked with the dynamic range here. The bright parts on the left side are overexposed, while the table is dark, dull, and unsharp as well. All of those shortcomings together sadly nullify the high aesthetic appeal of the picture. -- JovanCormac 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • After edits by Sarcastic SL, I change my vote to  Neutral. The flaw in bottom right is gone which makes the image a lot better, but the dynamic range and sharpness problems are still to large for me to support. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! --Karel (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose deformation at bottom right corner. Alvaro qc (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

* Oppose per Alvaro. Will support if its cropped away or fixed in some other way because i like this image.

 Support--Korall (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Info I've cropped 36 pixels of either side to remove the distortion, and rebalance the image. Might I ask that you re-examine it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Alvaro qc (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support surreal --ianaré (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support thanks for supports and kritics --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors