Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown Kings Bavaria Munich.jpg

File:Crown Kings Bavaria Munich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 06:24:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Crown Kings Bavaria Munich.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown Kings Bavaria Munich.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info The crown of the Kings of Bavaria, by Marie-Étienne Nitot (1750-1809), jeweler, Jean-Baptiste Leblond and Martin-Guillaume Biennais (1764 - 1843), goldsmiths. Paris, 1806-1807. Schatzkammer, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, photo created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I admire this picture because it was utterly difficult to take. This is not a studio shot but an image taken inside a museum, through glass, without a tripod. Taking that into condideration, the quality is stunning. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - This is splendid and would normally get my support, but what did the background originally look like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ugly and busy ! With tourists, other jewels, flares etc...At that time (2013), I did not upload original versions with original background, I'm not sure I've kept the first version...--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand. I'll  Support this based on its outstanding quality and the obvious encyclopedic/educational importance of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Great photo, I'm just not sure about it yet. The warm light from the lamps give the pic a rich and splendid yellow color which is good for the mood and makes for a good photo. I don't know if you intentionally kept it for that reason. The thing that bothered me most was the yellow color of the pearls since those are mostly white in crown jewels, so I did a version with color correction/WB and all of the sudden you can see that many of the settings are in white gold, the rubies take on their natural color and you can also see that the big dark stones are probably blue saphires wrong, see below (they looked green in the original). It is not such a splendid photo as the original, but I'm leaning towards preferring the right colors. cart-Talk 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks Cart. As Martin Falbisoner noticed, it is a museum picture. The room was very dark, with artificial soft light (many fragile old objects). So It's probable you are right (but not sure), anyway, I gave this picture to "Commons" as I kept it.--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC) And the dark stones are green emeralds and not blue saphires !--Jebulon (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining. :) Maybe this photo (with the golden light) could get the same consideration as the many flowers photographed at golden hour. cart-Talk 08:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe I could try a "mix" between your work as a layer and mine, especially regarding the pearls (and diamonds), but keeping the gold (I prefer "my" cushion and "my" gold !)--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Worth a try, I could agree on that and keep the white gold "white". :) There is also another pic for comparing colors. cart-Talk 09:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
          • ...and a third, for the set, under the same light (and wb corrected by me as too yellow ! Well, I think you are right, something is possible.)--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Nice! I'll have another go at 'my' version later tonight when I'm at home with better tools. cart-Talk 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
              • I've had a quick try (during my job time, a shame !!) and it works very well with yours and mine as layers. Gold is gold, diamonds are forever euh...diamonds, and pearls are pearls. You will enjoy.--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
                • I'm sure I will. :) So we both have bosses who would like it better if we were not so involved in Wikimedia projects. 'Mine' is fixed now, looking forward to your version so I can vote on it. ;) cart-Talk 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And many thanks to Martin Falbisoner for this surprising nomination. I encourage all the visitors of Munich to have a look at the Residenz Schatzkammer, it deserves a visit.--Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Schnobby, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Karelj, Uoaei1,😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk), Yann,Martin Falbisoner, cart-Talk, Ikan Kekek, lNeverCry, Mile, Dear friends, please notice that I've significantly reworked the white balance, with the very useful help of Cart. Now pearls look like pearls and diamonds like diamonds. Would you be kind enough to change your vote if you disagree ? If you don't change, I'll take it that your support remains. Thank you very much. I think we have now a very good improvement, many thanks to cart-Talk, this is a good collaborative job for "Commons". But don't forget to purge your cache !--Jebulon (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And here is my vote. With the real colors, the crown looks even more splendid than before since you can see all the details better. You did a great job! cart-Talk 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - I agree, Jebulon. This version is much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • indeed an amazing improvement --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Saw it, and i think seems -EVed. Need some light. --Mile (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Question - What does EV stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Educational" or "Encyclopaedical" value.--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Right. What confused me was using it as a verb with "ed". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment ohh, a mess. This is photographer jargon. I mean for Exposure Value, means +/- light, but also Ency. Value. Now you gave good reson to write some jargon typos in the beggining. --Mile (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • --Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects