Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piazza Venezia - Il Vittoriano.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Piazza Venezia - Il Vittoriano.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 00:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutral. Very nice, yet, I'm not completely convinced. I feel that it could have been larger especially given it's a panorama... or it could have been more crisp and detailed. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- This was not intended to be a super-detailed pano. I actually took only four pictures, which were merged and then cropped; therefore the "low" size. Just in case; it was not downsampled. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I see no issues. Could be more detailed, but this is fine for four photos. --Claritas (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Fantastic imagery, scenery. Good job. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- Sorry but I have to agree with Maurilbert. I don't like the low pov and the shadows either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)- Support per Claritas --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good job, nice, and high EV. FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose poor light and low sharpness (blurry) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Info Vittoriano faces north and a bit to the west: it never gets direct full light from the sun. I was there in the morning and afternoon. In google, you'll notice the best light it gets is in the late afternoon, always with a similar shade. Do you see blur in the whole image? Imo it is not a blurry image... but of course, everyone can judge differently. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is some trivial blurriness in the bottom left quarter, you can perhaps see it clearest on the red flowers. --Claritas (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- it never gets direct full light from the sun: ok, but that doesn't matter to me. I want to see a pleasant, natural light with an ideal illumination of (almost) all objects in the photo, and you will (almost) never have this with sunlight. Use cloudy weather, use clouds in front of the sun. Then you won't have shadows and the image would look much better, I'm sure. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think I must have that alternative too, somewhere in my RAW files. I might upload it if I find it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- it never gets direct full light from the sun: ok, but that doesn't matter to me. I want to see a pleasant, natural light with an ideal illumination of (almost) all objects in the photo, and you will (almost) never have this with sunlight. Use cloudy weather, use clouds in front of the sun. Then you won't have shadows and the image would look much better, I'm sure. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is some trivial blurriness in the bottom left quarter, you can perhaps see it clearest on the red flowers. --Claritas (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed I've improved the sharpening in this image. It is more detailed now. Claritas: thanks for the hint. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)- Support After being fixed i think it deserves FP now.Trongphu (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The building is white, it is famous for beeing white and in an encyclopdia it should be white. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose As Berthold Werner. --Karelj (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
