Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpg

File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 18:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpg

•  Info A part of the village of Mourèze, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 7 february 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 7 february 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as in previos attempt to nominate this picture. --Kikos (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

never nominated -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this? Same shadows, same mess.

--Kikos (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support very nice landscape, and very nice photograph. FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose You are so afraid of overexposing the sky that you underexpose the main object in the picture. Do you shoot raw of jpg? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I like the landscape very much, the cliffs and the trees, the buildings, scenic view. The only reason I opposed was the harsh light and shadows. Now improved but could be better. I would shift the white balance bit towards yellow and add some vibrancy. Then if some color becomes too vibrant, you can reduce saturation of this particular color separately. Don't want to tell you what to do, just to share my experience. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Urmas Haljaste, I listened to you, new version uploaded, thanks Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I shoot Raw of course, I said to A.Savin that I will return to this place to take better photos with better light and I will, but I like this picture, the light, the contrast, the colors, the composition and the sharpness (for me it give a little wow), I will not change anything, and Kikos, I understood your point of view. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) But have you ever tried to recover the shadow areas? If you shoot raw then it is possible to lighten up the shadows significantly without any loss in contrast and sharpness. With RAW the colors and details are there, even in this lighting. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  I like it like that, thanks Urmas Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose The light isn't flattering with harsh shaddows. The smoke in the centre of the picture causes a grey patch (I can tell it is smoke only because an earlier nomination shows the house with a chimney). The central building isn't attractive. The church on the left faces out of the picture. The landscape is "nice" but not anywhere near "wow". This is now the third nomination from the same shoot with, not surprisingly, the same poor light. Are we to expect File:Mourèze, Hérault 04.jpg soon? -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Nice shot, but underexposed. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I cancel my vote first to be fair, and see again when I'm on computer. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Better now. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done  Info Arctic Kangaroo, Urmas Haljaste, Jebulon, I uploaded a version with light, contrast and colors changed, I hope it's better. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment far much better !--Jebulon (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Better now. --JLPC (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice landscape but the increase of luminosity in the darker areas resulted IMO in an artificial touch, with lack of contrast Poco² 21:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for support, but now I'm not sure I want to see it promoted -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:53, 15 february 2014 (UTC)