Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm City Hall February 2014 02.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Stockholm City Hall February 2014 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 18:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stockholm City Hall.
  • Technically, it is not a HDR but a exposure fusion. And yes, both are allowed and almost a requirement here for certain types of images (interiors and night scenes) to avoid heavily over- or underexposed areas.--ArildV (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanx for info. I was almost sure HDR were not to pass not a long ago. But you still have problem with EXIF info, I suggest you to put manual one, since this isn't correct. So you can avoid it in description. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that a centered composition would have worked here, but this one is also FP to me Poco2 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yann (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (weak) I have two main problems with the photo: The light and the composition. Light: Due to the late time there was no remaining light from the day (blue hour). The main motive (building) looks too dark to me, it does not sufficiently stand out. Composition: Golden ratio was used, OK, but golden ratio implies with this motive that there is something interesting on the right. That is not the case with this motive. The way you've photographed the building might be better for a centered crop. If you would like to keep the left/right crop as it is, I would suggest to crop tighter at the bottom and slightly tighter at the top because the reflections of the water are not very remarkable or interesting (see note). Another note on the light: The light on the left side of the builing looks rather red compared to the right side of the builing. Is that correct? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  CommentThanks for your comment. I dont want to to crop more water, the relationship between the building and the water is part of the architecture (you can read more here w:Stockholm_City_Hall#Architecture and style). I normally choose blue hour rather when night, but a clear night with bright moonlight is an interesting alternative. It's just an image so if the light appears redder on the right side it does not depend on the camera (but there is more light from the right side, to the right is Stockholm Central Station and the city center). You can compare with another crop of the same image
    • I dont think the building is too dark, and I think the contrast between the sky and the illuminated building is realistic and beautiful.--ArildV (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, although I must also say that Tuxyso's comments have some merit --DXR (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Tuxyso. Though you could try a portrait crop to make more of a feature of the lights on the water. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Halavar (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support —Blurred Lines 17:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Stockholm_City_Hall_February_2014_02.jpg&oldid=117596781"