Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diocletianopolis The Southern Gate at Night.jpg

File:Diocletianopolis The Southern Gate at Night.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 11:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Diocletianopolis The Southern Gate at Night.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diocletianopolis The Southern Gate at Night.jpg

•  Info created by Иван - uploaded by Иван - nominated by Иван -- Иван (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Иван (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Well executed and eye catching. Maybe someone should do some noise reduction in the sky and foreground, but it doesn't really affect the overall impression. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed and lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blown highlights in the main subject. --Cayambe (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Ilikeliljon (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The image gives a good impression on the object, and the nocturnal conditions give it a fascinating spin. Positive yes. P.S. While the image is not contrast-perfect, it does provide a fine contrast between the blue horizon (dark color) and the white monument (light color). It could also be argued that the highlights in the foreground give the Wikimedia viewership a hint of the fusion between historical traditions (the monument) and modernity (the lights, electricity, and so on and so forth). I do not think those negative comments above should be taken seriously, therefore. --Александър (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to their opinion being given fair consideration. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment What happened to the EXIF data? Has the photo been edited? →Spiritia 11:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've used Noise reduction and Crop commands in a photo-editing programme. That's why the exif-data are not presented, are they obligatory? Иван (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not obligatory, but desirable. You can do all of those operations whilst preserving exif too. Just don't use "Save for web" etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've always considered EXIF data in (originally digital) photos as important as the Reference section in the articles. They very much add credibility to the author, as well as helpfully inform the other photographers of parameters like ISO, speed, aperture, etc. See Commons:EXIF :) Maybe you can upload the original photo (under a different filename) and let us know the name of the editing program. Thus you may obtain a more particular advice of how to preserve the EXIF data. →Spiritia 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've no time to come back to this file again, but I'm going to preserve the exif data in all pictures, which I'm going to upload in Wikimedia Commons later. Иван (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Strong support Encyclopedic and educational --Stanqo (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lighting seems unnatural. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose As IdLoveOne. --Moros y Cristianos 06:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)