Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg

File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 04:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support good one. looking at the pillars i sense some distortion. metadata would be great. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment This picture is already a Featured Picture. --Bgag (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On Commons? --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - There's no way you can say no to this image. This could very well be the best photograph of the Fontana di Trevi that I've seen. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose Massively overdone HDR tonemapping. Looks absolutely unreal. --Niabot (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support There are distortions, but it is so sharp and vivid I can't say no. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose full ACK Niabot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Generally good, but strong distortions on the pediment (the four statues and the papal coat of arms, above, are really deformed). The proportions of the persons (tourists) are not natural.--Jebulon (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Niabot --Pudelek (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture! I don't see any evidence of overdone HDR tonemapping though. Maybe just plain exposure fusion, if anything. But either way, the end result looks very realistic, sharp and vivid (per HFSW). LeavXC (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  just compare the reality original version to see what we mean. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• It still looks more like exposure fusion than HDR tonemapping though. The shadows are shown better in the overcast sky, and the building seems better exposed, IMO. If it is HDR tonemapping, then it was done very well. It looks natural and vivid. You can also see the building's text and details better in this version. LeavXC (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral per Peter Weis--MASHAUNIX 21:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cimosteve (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks very having artificial colors (per Niabot).. distortions also is a small problem.. Ggia (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. Great details and colors. Would have preferred without the tourists though. mgeo talk 17:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jebulon. --Slaunger (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative (Original)

Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy - May 2007.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy - May 2007.jpg

•  Support --Niabot (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--MASHAUNIX 14:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yarl ✉ 10:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Weird geometry at top of building. Great detail level and overall technical quality. Light not optimal. --Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)