Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018.jpg

File:Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2018 at 14:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018.jpg

9

363

4901

2220

4918

2591

crop suggestion, would make a better gold/blue area ratio

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info Lenbachhaus, Munich: wing by Foster and Partners - worm's-eye view. I'm feeling bold today so I'd like to nominate this very abstract architecture shot. Everything's reduced to the minimum here. The building intself is just a golden triangle surrounded by a blue sky. Looking more closely, the buildings's triangle actually consists of two smaller triangles, one well lit and golden, the other in shade and rather dark. Each of these triangles is further subdivided by even smaller triangles. The sky's also made up of two, slightly overlapping triangles. All in all very fitting for the representation of a museum dedicated in part to abstract art and featuring works by Wassily Kandinsky or Paul Klee. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not really wowed by this particular composition. --Peulle (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Another "would make a cool album cover" image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose This one is not telling much to me, sorry Poco² 17:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharp photo, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

* Oppose In this I have to agree with the 'o's, unfortunately. It is almost there, but if you are going to go abstract, you have to go all in. Make the photo really mathematical and let the tip of the gold touch the border and make two true blue triangles. That would also make the blue/gold ratio in the photo more equal/pleasant. I don't know if this shot can be really saved by a crop since it will be very "panoramic" in shape. Will leave a note though. -- Cart (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Info I'm following Cart's advise - going from bold to radical ;-) ... Pinging Basotxerri, Peulle, Karelj, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Berthold Werner, Poco, Michielverbeek --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I also thought of this crop to get a set of triangles. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Support now. That's better. Now the building is bold and protruding instead of ducking the sky. :) -- Cart (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Hmmm, I'm not totally convinced. However, I won't change my vote. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support wow. Grtek (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support now – really much better imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I luv radical. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Whether it's abstract, radical or whatever, I still don't like the top crop. If you add back just a bit of air at the top of the photo, though, I'll cross out my opposing vote. I also disagree with many of the others and like the previous version better - it's much more restful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info Following Ikan's suggestion, I'd like to nominate an alternative that offers a bit more sky at the top without abandoning the fundamental (i.e. "mathematically abstract") concept of the image. While I do agree with Cart that "going all in" is the right thing to do in a case like this one, I also understand that carefully conceding a tiny bit to more conventional rules of composition might make this nomination easier. So here's my "compromise," if you will... pinging all previous voters: Basotxerri, Peulle, Karelj, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Berthold Werner, Poco, Michielverbeek, Grtek, Llez, El Grafo, MZaplotnik.
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support OK, this one is it! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral both versions are great, undecided what is better Grtek (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I'd be OK with this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - I like this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support OK too. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral Still not convinced here, but will go up to neutral as the last 2 versions are indeed better Poco² 18:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany

The chosen alternative is: File:Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018 -2.jpg