Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kowloon Waterfront, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 05.jpg

File:Kowloon Waterfront, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2013 at 20:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kowloon Waterfront, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 05.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kowloon Waterfront, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 05.jpg

•  Info Row of typical Hong Kong taxis at the International Commerce Centre with the skyline of Hong Kong island in the background, Kowloon, Hong Kong. All by me, Poco² 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it has been over-processed photo. Unnatural colors. 've seen recently with great concern a large number of outstanding images. All with changes in their colors, such as blue sky as bora bora or excesive noise reduction, dramatic filters. There is a perception of mine, since these photos were taken in places and times where I was there. My concern is that this bill becomes 500px.com --The Photographer (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think this is fantastic. Yes, there's some clipping, but can't do much about that given the high-contrast scene. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I was in Kowloon that day and I feel like I'm right back there when I look at it. Yes, again, there's not much you can do about the clipping. But it's a small part of a great image of the skyline, sky and taxis. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Good editing, IMO the back of the first car need a very little noise reduction but very good --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Kikos (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Arcalino (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support   • Richard • [®] • 07:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --sfu (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 12:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• {o}  Support Good composition, good idea and funny image, but I agree with The Photographer, I find this very kitschy, it looks than an oversaturated american advertising of the 50s, + annotated dustspot in the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I think it is far much better now, seems less agressive to me. Therefore I change my vote and I support, because of the beginning of my first assessment, still accurate.--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with King of Hearts. The problem of having sun on the skyscrapers and shadow over the taxis has been nicely solved. But Jebulon is right and there's a spot there, can you fix it, please? --Kadellar (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

   New version uploaded addressing the dust spot and with a selective denoising around the first taxi. Regarding the "unnatural" look of the picture I'd just like to add that the current picture is not that far of the original one, I mostly lightened up the darker areas in the foreground, no big editing Poco² 18:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Poco, Could you upload the RAW file to Commons Archive?. I would compare the original version of the current. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to verify my statement I can forward you the RAW file, but I wouldn't really like to upload it there. Poco² 16:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, send me that to my email, then, I will change my vote. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but you don't have to change anything Poco² 21:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Much better with the denoising around the first taxi. There is two dustspots more, see note --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Gone sharp eye, thanks, Poco² 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for send me the RAW. Now you can easily see the difference in color of the sky bora bora version and real version. Clearly this is not just a change of lighting, this is a total change of the picture, especially in colors --The Photographer (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the sky can be brightened a little but very good editing by Diego --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wilfredo, please, stop this. I am getting tired of your attempt to prove I don't know what. You are not supposed to change my nomination into a before-later comparison contest with a file that I haven't even publish and I sent you privately. You didn't even ask me.

As I already explained you via email I haven't done anything especial with this picture that I don't do with all other my pictures, apart from the fact that I had to lighten up the darker areas in the foreground heavily, as I already explained. You seem to have a problem with the colors, which IMO are okay and are the result of my standard settings. After almost 9000 pictures uploaded it is the first time I have this kind of discussion. I only shot RAW and RAW needs per se to be developed and requires some adjustments like sharpness, contrast, saturation (little in my case: value 7 in LR is my standard setting). Please, stop this and judge the result, you have already expressed your opinion clear enough (even in other pages complaining about "Bora Bora skies"), if you don't like the picture, keep your oppose vote, but let this nomination run and don't boicot it. Thank you for your understanding Poco² 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yo creo que este tema se salio un poco de control, no es para tanto. Simplemente no puedo creer que esté equivocado?, aparentemente así es por la cantidad de personas que están votando a favor. Creo que tendré que reconsiderar que es lo que es la realidad, la realidad desde el punto de vista del observador. Yo sinceramente no termino de ver esta imagen bien, algunos usuarios me han pedido que te pida, valga la redundancia, disculpas por haber subido una versión RAW JPG de Lightroom. Yo considero que el que nada teme, nada debe, además creo que me habrías dado permiso para subirla igualmente. Anteriormente no critique tus fotos porque yo no estuve alli para observar ese cielo en ese momento y en ese lugar, sin embargo, en este caso me atrevi a hacerlo. Si todos estos votos te apoyan, yo debo estar equivocado posiblemente, sin embargo, es mi punto de vista. No hay necesidad de hacer un drama a todo esto, no estoy llevando ninguna campaña en tu contra, si te pones a ver, he hecho comentarios similares a otras fotos inclusive en QIC. --The Photographer (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Great scene. I've downloaded this and opened in Photoshop on a factory-calibrated monitor. The colours don't look unnatural (though I wasn't there). My only issue is it looks like you've been a bit over-generous with the "clarity" slider on Lightroom. Quick note: if your monitor is a wide-gamut one and you are looking at this in a web browser, there's a good chance the red will appear over-saturated because the browser isn't handling the colourspace properly. I don't think looking at an unprocessed raw file is fair, nor is legal to publish it without permission so it should be deleted imo. Colin (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for your assessment Colin!, I have reduced the contrast of the mid-tones following your suggesting to be more moderate with the clarity slider and uploaded accordingly a new version. Will definitely buy a new monitor and get it calibrated. Poco² 10:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't have a general problem with the way this was edited but I do think the brightness gradient is very obvious in the top third of the photo and not really necessary there. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles