Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gumbaz - Srirangapatna.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Gumbaz - Srirangapatna.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2022 at 08:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#India
Info created by Sumit Surai - uploaded by Sumit Surai - nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment The dust spots should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)- Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose I can't support this when the slight tilt is obvious. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Harsh light. —kallerna (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Per others. Where is the wow ? It's leaning on a bit, the building is slightly over-exposed, and it is not very sharp for an FP. Even for QI the picture is at the limit IMO. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not saying you should support, but the building would be the wow if a viewer were feeling wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Of course ! This is just my opinion. I downgrad my strong oppose to oppose. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Beautiful architecture but the light is a bit too harsh and shadowy for FP and the image quality is not quite sharp enough to make up for it. The kind of picture I wouldn't vote to delist if it were already featured, but not going to support Cmao20 (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral To give this photo a little love: I can’t find any substantial tilt; the photo seems correctly aligned, I would guess that just the building itself is not perfectly rectangular (quite common with old buildings ;–). The composition is simple but effective. It’s just that the light is somewhat harsh and the colours are a little bit dull. We have no EXIF data, but I assume this file is based on a straight out-of-camera JPEG file – the slightly overexposed bright areas, the dark shadows and the bland colours are typical for the JPEG engine of many digital cameras. I guess that if we had a raw image file of the same shot and could process it correctly, the photo would look better and gain the certain something which is missing right now. (I am saying this mostly as a hint for all who are still unsure whether to switch to the raw image file format of their camera. Yes, shooting in raw means more post-processing, but it can really make the difference.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)- Weak oppose per Kallerna and Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Nice composition, but I'm not sure it's FP-level. But either way, I'd suggest for you to eliminate the dust spots on the left in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
