Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museu da República 1.jpg

File:Museu da República 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2021 at 15:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Museu da República 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museu da República 1.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Brazil
•  Info created and uploaded by Fwsbsb - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Wow, but unfortunately too noisy and please think about the verticals. --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  IMO it would be good to cut the upper part of the image so that the building and the street are in the middle and the lamp beam creates full symmetry with its reflection in the water, but Im not sure that the photographer agrees with this. --IamMM (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose noise Buidhe (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Buidhe. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support as is. I see this as visual art, not a documentary. --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Version

•  Comment The uploader doesn't look to be active on Commons, so I took the liberty of uploading an edited version. I adjusted verticals, gave it a tiny bit more space at the top, and denoised it. The amount of denoising it needed makes me still unsure it would pass FPC, but I really like the image so I uploaded it anyway: File:Museu da República 1 edit.jpg. If you see this, Fwsbsb and would like this version to replace the original rather than be separate, just let me know. You can reupload it yourself (or another version) and I will request deletion of this version. Pinging participants thus far to see if it's worth putting this up as an alternative: @IamMM, Michielverbeek, Buidhe, Daniel Case, and El Grafo: . IamMM, I will defer to you. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well denoised but verticals are not straight, so unfortunately no support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhododendrites, for taking the time to create and upload the edited version! IMHO it is much better, I would be happy to support it. --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are people here so obsessed with noise? It makes not sense to me to pixel-peep an image that is intended to be viewed as a whole. The new version does not look any better at normal viewing sizes and it looks worse at 100%. Yes, the sky looks smooth now, but at the price of posterization and loss of detail on the subject. I'm not against selectively de-noising the background a bit, but this went too far, in my opinion. That little bit of additional space on top was a very good idea, though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding posterization, I don't disagree. That's part of what I meant by my hedging in the beginning. I tried a few different methods of denoising and didn't find one that worked all that well. I don't mind some noise, but the reality is a very noisy image of a static subject has little to no chance of passing FPC. I think it's worth trying to get this one to pass. I'd be happy for someone else to do a better job than mine, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the original version was not the noise, but the leaning verticals. --Aristeas (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Per El Grafo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support for the alternative version. --Aristeas (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support, this one is much better.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support I do wish some things were different, and would support someone else taking another pass and fixing it up, but I think this is a really interesting shot worth featuring, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC))

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Brazil

The chosen alternative is: File:Museu da República 1 edit.jpg