Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphenburger Schloss at sunset.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Nymphenburger Schloss at sunset.JPG, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2013 at 09:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment Straight spot to remove (see note), there is few birds and a plane (I've no problem with that), but darkness areas are very dark and the left part seem a bit blurry -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Done the spot is gone, brightness adjusted --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but I'm not very satisfied with this composition with the fountain at the front. I also find the shadow at left a bit disturbing, which is a pity because it spoils the nice symmetry. There's also lack of detail at the roof and regarding other little details, sorry, maybe also because the light of the day when you took the picture. See this already FP, which I find perfect: File:Image-Schloss Nymphenburg Munich CC edit3.jpg. --Kadellar (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm, yes, this image is great. I already knew it before taking my own picture. That's why I wanted to give it a shot with exactly this composition, ie the fountain in the center and the warm light of sunset reflecting on the facade. I admit that the harsh contrasts that this situation tends to create are somewhat unfortunate... Any other opinions? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just tested what happens if you brighten the dark areas a little and in my opinion, that improves the image because the shadows, especially the one on the left, aren't that black any more then. I'm not sure if it's enough though, the composition is still slightly weird. A camera position about 2 m higher would of course be better but also very difficult to get. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I tried to brighten up the dark areas (and also a little bit the image as a whole). A camera position 3,5m above the ground would be great, but I suppose the park administration wouldn't really appreciate me building a scaffold right there... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just tested what happens if you brighten the dark areas a little and in my opinion, that improves the image because the shadows, especially the one on the left, aren't that black any more then. I'm not sure if it's enough though, the composition is still slightly weird. A camera position about 2 m higher would of course be better but also very difficult to get. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Arcalino (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good reworking -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support— ℳ₪Zaplotnik 14:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stas1995 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
