Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Venedig BW 1.JPG

File:Venedig BW 1.JPG (delist and replace), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2021 at 08:42:59
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Delist and replace with File:(Venice) Bocca di Leone in the Doge's Palace.jpg:

•  Info The proposed replacement is huge and sharper than the existing FP at greater than that photo's total size. (Original nomination)
•  Delist and replace -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, the thumbnails are side by side on this page. The proposed replacement is on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delist and replace --Milseburg (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not sure: in the new version, big parts of the inscription are unfocused. If I had to decide this, none of both images are FP for me. --A.Savin 13:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Question At what size are you finding parts unfocused? I don't think they have to be pinpoint sharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• When clicking on the full size. Letters look unsharp and extensively over-sharpened. --A.Savin 01:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I disagree with pixel peeping this. You see how oversized everything is at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The light is far better in the original. Compare the text or the upper left corner, the replacement looks like a photocopy -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The original is not sharp even at merely full screen on my 13-inch screen. I haven't seen this in person, but on the face of it, I disagree on the light; it's brighter in the proposed replacement, which I think is good. I'm a little surprised by the reactions so far (except the pixel-peeping; I expected some of that, but it makes no sense to compare a photo at gigantic full size with another photo at much smaller full size, which you are not doing). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The replacement is harsh white + harsh black, while the original displays gradients and subtil shades. In particular the text appears in its natural thickness in the current version, where the outlines are visible, whereas it's just full black without detail in the proposed alternative. More pixels but less appealing aspect in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I understand your point of view. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome.  Neutral for this reason -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delist and replace --StellarHalo (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace There is no problem with the light. The difference is in the patina. The two images are very distant in time. Time can be measured here by the thickness of dirt left by tourists who have free access to this sculpture and who do not hesitate to subject it to many outarges. Not to mention those who, despite the mouth is blocked, slip small messages or anything else. For this the sculpture is regularly cleaned which, in the same year, gives different photographic results. Personally I like both but I will vote all the same and take the opportunity to thank Ikan Kekek for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace .--Vulphere 07:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 13:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)