Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf Kettwig mit Uferpalais im Herbst 2013.jpg

File:Blick auf Kettwig mit Uferpalais im Herbst 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2013 at 20:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf Kettwig mit Uferpalais im Herbst 2013.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf Kettwig mit Uferpalais im Herbst 2013.jpg

•  Info View from the Ruhr Bridge ("Ruhrbrücke") on the historic center of Essen Kettwig with rebuilt waterside palace ("Uferpalais") photographed with an ND1024 filter
  all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning! Yann (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support You used just the right shutter speed to capture the movement of the water. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Yann and King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Good and nice. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not my taste at all, sorry. I dislike the treatment of the water (the main subject ?) and I find the sharpness of buildings in backround not optimum.--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "treatment of the water"? What is wrong with it? I have not "treated" the water but just visualized the flow of the water.  Info The flow speed of the water at this position is quite fast because under the bridge I am standing on there is a large weir system. The motive is the old town of Kettwig (nowadays a district of the city of Essen) which is directly located at the river Ruhr. If you look into the history there is a close relationship between Kettwig and its former textile industry and the river Ruhr. Thus this photo is imho a very good illustration of Kettwig. For me sharpness is OK (take a look on the resolution). I think not every photo must be 36 Mpx from D800 or a stitching. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Be sure I agree with your last sentence. I just dislike the way you "visualized" the flow of the water, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the buildings and the water, but some of the trees are quite blurred due to wind (and long exposure) and this is not good IMO. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The blurred areas are quite small, only visible at the second or third glance - imho nearly inevitable with such long exposure shots. I was happy to got a moment of relative still air :) --Tuxyso (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done @Norbert and others: I've tried to solve the blurr problems with the tree at the center of the image (took parts from a short exposure). Please take another look and tell if it is better now. Thanks. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Kikos (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please give reason(s) for negative votes. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Bad lights, depressive coloring. I don't like this picture as "featured" on Commons. --Kikos (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. IMHO light is not that bad (I waited for a moment of slight sunlight on the buildings) and weather is very charateristic for autumn in Germany :) --Tuxyso (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the motion blur of the photo. That immediately catches the eye. But not a fan of how the trees are obscuring most details of the palace. That's not working. --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Jebulon --Vamps (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I cannot understand what's wrong with the water. I visualized the rapid flow of the water by using an ND filter - what else? I can also not see what's wrong with the sharpness. I've uploaded the photo in full resolution and think that sharpness is more than OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice city landscape (and different, thanks!) --Kadellar (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nicely done.--.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JKadavoor Jee 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places