Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento, Trieste, Italia, 2017-04-15, DD 10.jpg

File:Ayuntamiento, Trieste, Italia, 2017-04-15, DD 10.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2018 at 20:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento, Trieste, Italia, 2017-04-15, DD 10.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento, Trieste, Italia, 2017-04-15, DD 10.jpg

16

32

7842

3648

7874

4821

crop suggestion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info View of the town hall in a grey day, Unity of Italy Square, Trieste, Italy. The building dates from 1875 and is a work of italian architect Giuseppe Bruni. All by me, Poco² 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice Shoot, I will support when the verticals and white aura are fixed (see notes) --The Photographer 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unnatural. Strong and visible processing. The original sky was probably white or light grey, and the exposition seems to have been selectively darkened. As a result, we can see the separation line all around the buildings made by the adjustment brush (or equivalent tool). It creates an artificial white halo around the roofs and walls, which has certainly nothing to do with the initial shot at normal global exposure. The most visible parts of this selective correction are probably on the left around the sculptures, and on the right side of the central building. The final result gives an impressive sky, but unfortunately unrreal because not matching with the lighting of the buildings -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, the editing doees seem very poor. Charles (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment @The Photographer, Daniel Case, Basile Morin, and Charlesjsharp: : I fixed the halo (agree, was not at FP level) and reduced a bit the dramatic effect of the sky. @The Photographer: I also applied a slight fix to the perspective. @Basile, about your comment, you don't have too develop a theory about what I could have edited, just look at the file history, I don't have anything to hide. Poco² 11:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• The natural was hidden behind a giant mask of darkness, sorry. This new version is more acceptable  Neutral -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a perspective problem, I added a note --The Photographer 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Photographer: , I am not really sure whether you can expect everything to be perfectly straight here, I applied a 0,1° tilt Poco² 18:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support I was looking the last version, Now there is an acceptable quality for FP. A panoramic cut would also improve giving more representation to the structure and not to the white line. My personal recommendation is that a well-made photo does not need so many retouching. Recently I am trying to make the minor adjustments possible to a photo, especially retouching manual (like perspective and clarity filter in the sky), this kind of retouching usually ends up damaging other things how result of the repair procedure. --The Photographer 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment see note - I'd suggest a much more panoramic crop. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  I can offer an alt, any other opinions? I do like the perspective as a result of the line I was standing on --Poco² 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support - Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Processing went a bit overboard in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Great atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Some criticism of the excessive photo editing maybe, but the image makes up for it as the vastness of the square is caught nicely... --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 00:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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