Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chambord Castle Roof.jpg

File:Chambord Castle Roof.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2012 at 17:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chambord Castle Roof.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chambord Castle Roof.jpg

•  Info created by Telemaque_MySon - uploaded by Telemaque_MySon - nominated by Telemaque_MySon -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Great perspective -- Martin Kraft (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• temporary:  Neutral "Strong effect on eyes, difficult to interpret as 'natural' landscape" architecture view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose in part per Alchemist-hp but it lacks real focus for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Info This picture, for the proposed 'featured part' I intended, aims to capture several components of architecture at once. In this sense, it does not pretend to be a landscape.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I corrected my comment. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, overprocessed unnatural look. Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose underexposed (esp. on the right), noisy, chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Info It is not overprocessed , it is wide angle with polarizer filter. For the underexposed, it is on purpose, and if you take time to look at the composition, right side does not need light in my lense it would be a multiple FP issue then. For the noisy part, it can be corrected for the sky.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Didn't say it is overprocessed, but that it has an overprocessed look. Anyways, I changed my comment accordingly. Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What was gained in the way of drama was lost in the lack of detail due to lighting choice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. At pixel-peeping magnifications, there are flaws, which should be correctable. There's a lot of noise. Did you sharpen this, which amplifies the noise? Is it getting sharpened when you "save as jpeg"? I know in Lightroom you can apply a mask to the sharpening tool to avoid creating noise; don't know about Photoshop. Also there is CA in the corners that Photoshop should be able to deal with. Colin (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)