Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Naturkundemuseum Vogelsaal 926449506HDR.jpg

File:Bamberg Naturkundemuseum Vogelsaal 926449506HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2017 at 21:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Naturkundemuseum Vogelsaal 926449506HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Naturkundemuseum Vogelsaal 926449506HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice light! "The Flying Dead"; the little known sequel to "The Walking Dead". :) --cart-Talk 21:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect, but good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is good but the processing is too much for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question what kind of processing do you mean.--Ermell (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to call it; the birds don't look real. There's definitely something off about this; the detail is washed out.--Peulle (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment There seems to be a lot of sharpening and denoising, which has produced some artifacts. I wonder if the Olympus sensor shift thing has also introduced some artifacts. dllu (t,c) 00:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seconded. The bird in the front has a noticable sharpening halo, and yes the denoising is very heavy -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Thirded, though it actually looks like noise to me, and it's particularly apparent in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 13:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Excellent composition and good overall quality. The pixelpeeping is getting really ridiculous here. Guys, please look at the picture, not at the pixels! --Code (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well it's worth at least noting pixel-level issues so that the author is aware of them. I agree that pixel peeping is an unhelpful standard off which to base a vote though -- Thennicke (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• So you guys not only support the photo but also think it's illegitimate to compare this to the supremely detailed, fantastic interiors that we've advanced to FP and find it not outstanding enough for FP on that basis? And even though it looks like this photo is set to be voted in as an FP with only a couple of opposing votes, that's terrible? Of course the composition is good and the picture is a very good effort; these things are not in question. But I think it's legitimate for me to find the lack of clarity in the details, especially in the foreground, disappointing, relative to existing FPs of interiors that are truly magnificent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Of course there are always better pictures. We can't expect every interior to be stitched. There are few contributors who are able to create Diliff-style pictures, most of our fellow contributors here are not able to. We shouldn't compare every interior with those of Diliff or others. This picture here is still among our finest. --Code (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ikan, my vote is based off the fact that I find the image beautiful. The quality could be better but this image still looks nice at fullscreen on my 2K monitor, so I am not bothered too much by the pixel-level issues - though they do come into my consideration -- Thennicke (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I understand and don't contest your reasoning. That wasn't the import of my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Another thing to consider is that unlike a QI, this can be replaced if a better version appears.--Peulle (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's true, but it tends to happen very sparingly, and only when it's very obvious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak  Support. There are definitely artefacts, but they are not particularly egregious given the 56 MP resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ermell maybe to say to other its Hi-Res shot (one single shot), not stitched etc... in that case its more supportable. --Mile (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors