Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Trevi fountain 2015.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 20:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Trevi fountain 2015
  •  Weak per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Hubertl, it's not about "the finest picture of this exact subject", for that is true of most images presented here. It's about being among the finest on Commons. So compare with other city night photos. Plus points for avoiding all the tourists (though it is not impossible and getting out of bed early seems to be how it's done). But the sky is completely black so minus points for lack of colour (blue hour). The fountain itself is quite heavily blown. So the exposure isn't handled well. The windows are at all sorts of angles so unless there's been an earthquake, there must be something gone wrong when stitching or projecting. The central third is sharp and the two reliefs there are well lit, but the rest is very soft and very very badly lit. Compare File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg (daytime, I know). In that, the building is not wonky and the form of the statues, columns, stones and flowing water can all be seen. There's actually texture on the building. Whereas here most of the lighting is flat or blown or the image so soft that very little detail is there, despite the larger JPG. In Diliff's photo, one can see the fountain water beautifully falling, whereas here it is just a blur. And the nail in the coffin is that the fountain itself is cropped so it fails to be a complete image of the subject. This is not among our finest night photos, and for such a highly-photographed subject, we should expect better. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I confirm some aspects you set to discuss, Colin, but not in general. Your complaints are not enough for me to oppose this picture as FP. I explained my doubts. The clipping areas, using a 27mm lens (18mm with crop). Everyone, who was there, knows, how difficult it is, because you cannot go back. It´s incredible narrow. The fact, that the fountain area is cutted of, is my biggest problem, because its an inherent and important part of the fountain. On the other hand, it is not possible to get a night picture without a blurry waterfalling. The whole scenery (fountain and background) was recently renovated, so you can´t hardly compare Diliffs and Livios picture, regarding to the texture of the stones, the house etc. But I wasn´t there after the renovation. Summarized: The best night picture we have right now, I would love to take this scene with the new 11-24mm I´m working with. At the blue hour in the morning, in Summer or spring. Livios HDR are out of the camera afaik, he doesn´t make AEB with 5 or more single pictures. This maybe could bring a better result. And at the very end, he doesn´t have really good, professional lenses. --Hubertl 15:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well your closing comments really sum up this nomination. Poor Livio with his inferior technique and equipment, we must make allowances. Come on, look at our excellent night photos of featured buildings and consider the combination of colours, fine detail and careful exposure and framing. Do you think that if Diliff, for example, uploaded and nominated this, the response would any anything but a column of "WTF?" opposes. We pick at a little CA or noise or a blurry corner on our best nominators, but others get a free ride. The only thing remarkable about this image is the lack of tourists, and given that Livio lives in Rome rather than having a brief holiday there, doesn't make it very remarkable in my book. He can go back. Any time he likes. I compare with Diliff's because it shows the building is not in fact the "Leaning Palazzo Poli" but a perfectly regular building, and I hardly think renovation would cause later image to be inferior. It is about light -- quality and direction. It is possible to photograph a fountain at night while still showing the flow, you need to use a slightly faster exposure. Simply using ISO 200 rather than 100 would have captured the flow rather than turning the fountain into a blur. That's the sort of detail, I expect from a featured picture of a fountain. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is his choice not to do a proper AEB/exposure fusion, our task is to decide whether that's a good or bad choice (same thing for the photographer's choice of aperture, time, exposure, composition, focal length). I dont understand the "lack-of-professional-lens" for two reasons. We are reviewing the image (otherwise should I oppose a similar imagetaken with an more expensive camera?), high quality lenses for Nikon does not have to be expensive (100 euro lens, 20 euro lens). Nikon D5200 is a very good camera with a very good sensor (superior to all Canon cameras except Canon EOS 5DS/R, and with better Dynamic Range when Canon EOS 5DS/R).--ArildV (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin (exposure/crop).--ArildV (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Colin: overexposed, fountain is cropped. Yann (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose along the lines of what Colin wrote, most notably the clipping and light. — Julian H.✈ 14:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed, and the building is off-centre. Firebrace (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panorama_of_Trevi_fountain_2015.jpg&oldid=183704617"