Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpg

File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 11:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice little church! Beautiful photography, no negative points detected. Just asking: Why did you need to stitch several pics together, when you are using a 36MPix camera? Or is it a HDR stack instead? --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The church is in the middle of the forest and I was too close with my 35 mm lens. Btw taking more shots allowed me also to focus better the top.Thanks for the comment--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment My 2 cents, but I find the alternative so much more attractive (size aside, but it's not all about it, or is it?) - Benh (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the "other version"? There is no alternative candidate. The size is pretty much the same --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I guess Benh ment this: and I can understand why. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • He or you could nominate it, ahem ;-)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Well I'd support the 'alternative'. ;) That is one spectacular pic! cart-Talk 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Will nom it if no one else has done it before me - Benh (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - On its own, this stands as a FP to me, but the "alternative" is truly spectacular and should be nominated separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like this one, but I prefer the other version up above. So I will refrain from !voting on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We are talking about two completely different subjects imho. This one is architectural while the other is landscape--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep, two different photos not two alternatives. The discussion just got a little sidetracked. cart-Talk 09:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose a straightforward high quality pic - but I'm not wowed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Martin Falbisoner. --Ivar (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I like this view very much --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not this one, pretty good but "normal" but the other (which is not an alternative), yes !--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are late. The other is already featured --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 21:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings