Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg

File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. -- MrPanyGoff 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good light and control of exposure. Good DOF and technical quality. Interesting architecture from a place where we are rather sparsely populated in our FP gallery (as far as I know). Interesting texture of the bricks. I was wondering for myself for some time if the shadows from the branches on the wall was distracting? I came to the conclusion that the shadows are so few (and probably unavaoidable), that it is not a nuisance, but rather underlines the environment (surrounded by trees) of this cute looking little church. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - very high technical quality - wonderful at full resolution ! Shadows of trees are a little bit off-putting but acceptable. --Claritas (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is a pretty subject and technically fine. But the branch shadows are distracting. Taking the picture over to the left might have made more of a feature of the curving path and less of the trees. The shadows are avoidable -- look at the other pics on Commons, such as this seasonal one. Colin (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose For sure quality is good, and I'm fine with the lighting and shadows, but basically, there's no wow to me (composition) - Benh (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose like Colin I prefer the composition with the snow --Moonik (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Beautiful church, wonderful colors, nice quality, but the shadows kill it for me. They were unavoidable imo, but that's not the point... they really are disturbing for my taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Come on pals, don't you think that these pale thin shadows actually add vivacity to the image!--MrPanyGoff 12:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case, really not. Had the wall been unicolor, maybe. But in this case, with all those parallel, straight lines on the wall, those random shadows are very disturbing for my taste. But I think the image is pretty good in general, so I won't oppose either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Not a bad image and I'm not disturbed by the shadows really, given the rather monotonous façade. As Benh, I miss the wow though. I like this angle more, as it shows more of the main facade and less of the side one, and it avoids that ugly path. Also describing it as "medieval" when in fact it was "mostly destroyed, leaving only the foundations" in the 19th century, the present being a reconstruction, I find somewhat misleading. --ELEKHH^T 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I specified that this is a reconstruction. After all, about 95% (and maybe more) of the world heritage of old times is a reconstruction. As for the angle which you suggest, you know, the both facades are almost one and same and it is completely visible here. No matter of the angle, the whole idea of this structure is presented well. Cheers ;) --MrPanyGoff 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I'm so sorry that there are no clouds to make the so called wow effect... :)--MrPanyGoff 16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I wasn't thinking of clouds, I was thinking of a better angle (as explained), one which shows more of the entry (an important part of a church), and has a more dynamic composition. That "both facades are almost one and same" I must disagree. Sorry if my assessment is disappointing, please don't take any criticism personally. And thanks for improving the description! --ELEKHH^T 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support low wow, but still good enough. Tomer T (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - nice mood. Jonathunder (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice picture, and the shadows make it more alive. Achird (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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