Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG

File:Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 19:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
•  Info Panoramic view of the Nymphenburg Palace, a Baroque palace in Munich, Bavaria (southern Germany). The palace is the main summer residence of the former rulers of Bavaria of the House of Wittelsbach. The palace was designed by Agostino Barelli and constructed by order of Ferdinand Maria and Henriette Adelaide of Savoy in 1664. The castle was expanded and redesigned several times until the last modifications in 1826. All by me, Poco² 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nymphenburg Palace is a very large complex and it is challenging to take a photo which covers all buildings. Nonetheless the headliner should be the building and neither the pond in the front which covers a lot of space, nor the sunset. I would strongly suggest to crop much tighter at the front and at the sky (see suggestion). Although the pano would look like a typical "pano tube" it is imho a better choice for this motive. I am also unsure regarding the light - the sunset is nice, but the best light to cover all buildings from this side seem to be in the morning. Coordinates of your shooting position are missing. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Tuxyso:  New version with cropped water, improved perspective and adjustment of curves. I opted for not cropping the sky, though. Regarding the preference of a morning light (which I have already done), I'd probably get the feedback that it isn't anything spectacular, but ok. I also added geodata, no big surprise here. Poco² 09:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Foreground is imho better now, but I cannot make friends with the wide crop at the top. Probably you can wait if there are comments with similar content and think about an alternative nomination. Probably it is only my very personal impression here. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Some serious mistake in stiching-Whole vertical line is missing. Ghosting by ducks and peoples, part of building is covered for reconustruction, i dont think that is good idea for FP of building. --Mile (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Mile: That what you noted was an editing problem, it's fixed now (see new version), no big deal. Regarding ghosting, it is very limited IMHO (through crops and edits) and I could remove it totally with further editing but to me it is a minor thing that shouldn't play a main role here. Ghosts are impossible to avoid in this scene under these circumstances. Actually the place was not crowded at all in comparison to the amount of people you usually see here. Maybe I just don't understand FP anymore and should but the place, quality and light are FP to me. Poco² 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment You have moving subjects all over, despite that you used ISO 100 ? What was the problem to put some 500-1000 ? I do that on my small camera without any bad effect. I am sure would benefit you more. --Mile (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• {{o}} there is a severe stitching problem, the vertikal one-pixel-line! From the top down to the bottom. --Hubertl (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) changed to  Neutral

  Hubertl: as mentioned above, issue fixed! Cannot understand why a straight away oppose is used for an issue that can be so easily fixed, a comment would have been enough and 2 hours later is gone. Poco² 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Please, don´t force that hard, Poc! --Hubertl (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  I just want to make you aware that things that can be easily fixed should guide to a straight oppose if they can be easily fixed, only that, I didn't mean to be rude Poco² 16:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support I like this mood and wow for me. --Laitche (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Water is real bad thing for every stitching software. 4 stitching edges on the water are clearly visible. I've marked the the two most distracting ones. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the notes Tuxyso, I believe that I have addressed all of them (or at least 4) in the last version Poco² 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications