Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPG

File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 10:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
•  Info Brimstone Hill Fortress, St. Kitts, UNESCO World Heritage Site Ref. Number 910: still unrestored bastion and passing sailing ship. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice the cemetery --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Very peaceful, beautiful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 18:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support More Saint Kitts and Nevis. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice mood. --Laitche (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral The composition is interesting but the lighting does not impress. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  Weak  Support. Cropping out the clouds helped the composition even more, and although it would still have been better if taken earlier in the morning, the boosted saturation is good enough for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ Well, I was literally the first visitor that day. To my utter astonishment (and to the barely hidden delight of my cab driver who kept charging me while we were waiting) the fortress doesn't open until 9:30 am - or actually more like 9:45 in reality. So I took the picture less than half an hour after I passed the first gate. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I actually like the lighting. The only thing that I'd complain about is the cut on the clouds at the top, but it's minor. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Light is bit off, but good compo. --Mile (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Info Thanks everybody. I've moderately redeveloped the raw, improving the lighting (i.e. reducing the effect of the polarizer a bit) and giving the clouds more space to float. The image is better now, imo, I hope you agree, pinging LivioAndronico, Berthold Werner, Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, 😄ArionEstar 😜 (talk), Hubertl, Laitche, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Thennicke (talk), Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - Thanks for the ping. I'm undecided on which version I prefer, but either way, I support a feature. Which version do you think is closer to how it looked in real life? I'd go with that one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That's really hard to tell. I'd say that my "update" offers slightly improved lighting that closer resembles reality but that doesn't mean that my original version gives an untrue impression of what things looked like when I took the picture. The sun was in my back, partly covered by thin clouds, I was playing with my polarizer, so... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Crop see note. --Hockei (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment thanks for your suggestion! But don't you think cropping that tight would leave the composition a bit unbalanced as there would barely be any sky left? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The upper clouds are not necessary. If cropped the land below comes more in the foreground. In other words this catches more the eye and is not so squeezed down to the edge. But it's only my opinion resp. my sense. --Hockei (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess there's more than just one format that works here. For the time being I'd like to stick to my crop though - but thanks anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I give a  Support. But nevertheless the upper crop hurts me a bit. My suggestion looks very much better in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Info after initial hesitation I finally got convinced by Hockei that getting rid of the upper clouds might actually improve the composition further; again pinging LivioAndronico, Berthold Werner, Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, 😄ArionEstar 😜 (talk), Hubertl, Laitche, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Thennicke (talk), Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I have no complaint. This version is also beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment This really is a beautiful image, per Ikan. I do prefer the crop, despite it changing the aspect ratio from 16:9. Composition feels very horizontally balanced now. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• CPL often make more wrong than right at quality. I left mine quickly, but was medicore quality. --Mile (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice elements for a composition Poco² 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, it is a great view, nice lighting, very useful, no doubt... but the quality?.. Is it just me who sees rather low level of detail? Especially when you look at the grass in many places, but above all at the water (!), which to me nearly completely appears somewhat like an oversharpened blue porridge. An other problem is significant blur at edges. Okay, I also suffer from this problem when using wide-angle lengths, but 40 mm... What's up, Martin? --A.Savin 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know for sure. Occasionally I've experienced this problem before when using my 17-40 at 40mm - and it seems I'm not the only one. Another factor that could come into play might be my polarizer (though I'm generally very happy with it). And as for the blur above the water line - well, of course it was also a tiny bit misty. This being said, I honestly don't believe that the central elements of the image are affected, so I'd argue that the overall quality is still more than sufficient. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Halavar (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Serene. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications