Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puerta de Brandeburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

File:Puerta de Brandenburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 06:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Puerta de Brandenburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puerta de Brandenburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
•  Info Quadriga of the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, Germany. The gate was commissioned by King Frederick William II of Prussia as a sign of peace and built between 1788 to 1791. It suffered considerable damage in World War II and during the post-war Partition of Germany, the gate was isolated and inaccessible immediately next to the Berlin Wall. The area around the gate was featured most prominently in the media coverage of the tearing down of the wall in 1989, and the subsequent German reunification in 1990. The gate was restored from 2000 to 2002 to its current appearance. After the 1806 Prussian defeat at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, Napoleon was the first to use the Brandenburg Gate for a triumphal procession and took its Quadriga to Paris. After Napoleon's defeat in 1814 and the Prussian occupation of Paris the Quadriga was restored to Berlin and redesigned as a Prussian triumphal arch. All by me, Poco² 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 08:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Question What happaned here. Do you have mirror lock-up ? Or tripod moved ? Some strange mistakes, not sure you made them. See note. --Mile (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Mile:  New version adressing your notes --Poco² 23:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think the strange fringes are due to HDR and the fames either not being aligned well or some having flare. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I see, I will fix it tonight and tell you more about it. I have an explanation for this. Poco² 14:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I believe that the problem was due to the lens with which I have had more and more problems. It isn't tight as it should and that is specially visible with long exposure images. When I tilt the lens down then it slides without resistance to the highest mm. I will send it to the Canon shop Poco² 23:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I see, problem was, but i was afraid you would use brush and clone tool to remove it, its now not so good, i think i would still put back original. Last image from Germany also didnt had so lucky corrections... i know this solving would be a problem. Poc send lens to refurbish etc... --Mile (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mile: "i was afraid you would use brush and clone tool to remove it", yes, I did. How would you have reworked it otherwise? the issue is within the brightest frame of the HDR, which I do need. I have just uploaded a new version with a rework of all edited areas and a noise reduction of the sky. For me it looks more than acceptable --Poco² 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Poc: I dont know how would i edit this, since i didnt have problem like this. So i think better to leave it as it is. I know stuff you mentioned, friend has it on Nikon DSLR, i was shocked i thought i would loose my lens...its simply all fell down when moved vertical. I was wondering, since dynamic range is probably big at your camera, was HDR necessary ? --Mile (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Although it would be even better if you could remove the strange (sharpening?) fringes. --Code (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  OpposeDetails on the pad (horses, people ...) not sharp, and highlights.--Morning (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Morning can you please add a note where you see such a lack of sharpness to oppose? Regarding the highlights, of course that there are some, that is perfectly normal as there are limelights up there, but there is definitely no lost of detail due to burnt areas. Please, consider also that this image has 43 MPx, much more resolution than most of the candidates here and expecting the same sharpness at full size of a 15 MPx and a 43 MPx it isn't really fair. Poco² 18:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  It is clear that the image (People, horses, vehicles...) is not sharp. Maintains the view.--Morning (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  I cannot follow sorry --Poco² 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect composition and lovely contrast. Almost looks like a studio shot. High EV. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Although I agree about the fringing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Monuments and memorials