Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Landungsbrücken -- 2016 -- 3173.jpg

File:Hamburg, Landungsbrücken -- 2016 -- 3173.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 05:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Landungsbrücken -- 2016 -- 3173.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Landungsbrücken -- 2016 -- 3173.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Part of the sky looks blown, but overall, an excellent photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support @XRay you can cut the blown part of the sky without losing anything. The composition will be better too! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll try it within the next days. Thanks. --XRay ^talk 09:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• ... and fixed. --XRay ^talk 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I like it better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks, perfect --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 09:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support A harbor, some ships and interesting structures, you got my attention. :) cart-Talk 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support very well done - especially considering the difficult lighting conditions --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree about the lighting. I think it looks too dark such that it is hard to make out things. I wonder if too much effort made to avoid blowing out the sky (which to me is not a big deal if handled well) and thus over-reduced the foreground. Also the colour balance looks too warm and the timestamp does not indicate late evening golden light. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin --The Photographer 17:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bottom with all thr cars i pretty boring. The bottom left is disturbing. Otherwise interestig but not FP imo. Sorry--93.56.65.160 20:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but IP votings not allowed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose A near-miss. With different light, and without that roof in the bottom right, I might have supported. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, the light comme from the wrong direction, and the sky looks overprocessed. The corner at left below is a composition no-go.--Jebulon (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks overprocesed, chaotic, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. Just a note: It isn't overprocessed. Sometimes (at the end of a wonderful day) this kind of light is natural. --XRay ^talk 11:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Of course yes. I know it from the real too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Well The EXIF contains details of quite strong processing of exposure levels, highlights and shadows, whites and blacks. Sometimes this is necessary and works, sometimes it creates results that look "over processed". It's certainly not an out-of-camera photo, but then sometimes the camera doesn't correctly capture what you saw. I wonder, XRay, if you have your monitor set a little bright? I'm sure the light was special for you when there, but not sure it has fully translated into this JPG. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: My monitor too bright? May be. The monitor is calibrated manually. A disturbing effect is that the images look well in Lightroom, but in Firefox they look a little bit too bright. I think it's the color model of Firefox and I didn't change the configuration. I know there is a parameter (gfx.color_management.mode) and I should do so. (And yes, it is processed, but not overprocessed. ;-) Automatic mode (out of cam) does not work very well.) --XRay ^talk 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, Lightroom and Firefox should agree. Per my notes at User:Colin/BrowserTest your image has a profile so should display correctly unless you have deliberately turned off colour management (value 0). It's pretty essential that Lightroom and browser agree. You could try resetting Firefox to factory default (not sure how to do that). Have you tricked checking the "Soft proofing" checkbox in Lightroom, which previews what the image will look like when saved as sRGB. This is getting off topic, though, so ping me on a talk page if you want to investigate further. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check all settings but there is no time to do this within the next days. Hopefully next weekend. (But I'll read your page today.) --XRay ^talk 15:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)