Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Quito desde El Panecillo, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 25-29 PAN.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 21:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View of Quito, capital of Ecuador, from El Panecillo. The city population is about 1,620,000 inhabitants and due to the orography of the region the city has a particular longish form. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Would have liked sunny weather, I guess, but given that this is pretty damn good. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment I do want to support this, but shouldn't you state that this is a stitched or panned panorama? Charles (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have added a template Charles, additionally I always state this kind of information in the file name. 25-29 PAN means that the frames 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been stitched to a panorama. Poco2 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yes, I guessed your coding, but the template is good. Charles (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment A geo tag would also be nice. :) --w.carter-Talk 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment too bright! Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Christian. Also there is one blurry stitching line (note added) and foreground saturation level looks too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Christian, Ivar: I've reduced the brightness and also a bit of saturation. It took me a while to identify a "blurry stitching line", I rather found some spots where sharpness was not as good as other areas, I sharpened them. Poco2 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support light is better, always some less sharp areas in the middle but acceptable for me Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Moderate support Definitely an improvement, but still not perfect (stitched frames are not equally sharp). --Ivar (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 20:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moderate support per Ivar. w.carter-Talk 09:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support In fact, it's a green hill and all the houses have been cloned there. (Just kidding...) --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Cayambe: ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose SORRY? Buildings are mostly overexposed (or over-contrast-enhanced subsequently), sharpness leap in the center. Stopped looking for more flaws having spotted those. --Kreuzschnabel 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)- Support Very good. es: Es increíble que se diga que la mayor parte de los edificios están sobreexpuestos (mentira). Es increíble que se diga que en zonas de cosido hay áreas desenfocadas (mentira). Además, se puede proponer una imagen de 2 megapíxeles y esta tiene más de 84 megapíxels. Ciertamente, pienso que
ola gente no sabe, o hay mucho rencor: Técnicamente no parece la foto criticable--Lmbuga (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC) New comment: Busque usted otras críticas --Lmbuga (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
