Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Palace, Udaipur, 20191207 1410 7154.jpg

File:City Palace, Udaipur, 20191207 1410 7154.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2023 at 08:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:City Palace, Udaipur, 20191207 ŷ410 7154.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Palace, Udaipur, 20191207 1410 7154.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#India
•  Info created and uploaded by Jakub Halun - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 13:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment I was liking this until I saw the unsharpness (camera shake?) on some of the nearest towers. Is there any way to fix that problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• It's not a shake. It's a depth-of-field issue. The palace is long, and I looked at it along its length. The middle part is in focus. -- Jakubhal 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• This photo is a good achievement, but I would have preferred for the background, rather than the foreground, to be unsharp. As a result, I'm still hesitating to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Support - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 07:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Princess 🍵 Rosalina 27060 07:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support Very beautiful scene, and yes, the rightmost towers are just out of focus. Of course at 22 mm focal length on a camera with an APS-C sensor and only 24 megapixels ƒ/8 or so should offer enough depth of field to get almost all of the palace in focus, given that the focal plane is placed optimally (probably a tiny bit closer to the camera than it is the case here). Sorry for the nitpicking – I don’t want to criticize you, but to draw attention on technical possibilities to optimize our photographs. --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not with this unfocused area at the right, sorry. Usually there should not be this problem when you take a photo of a building at this (or longer) distance. A pity, otherwise very nice photo. --A.Savin 12:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a good documentary photograph of an impressive building, but with the OOF part and without an interesting sky or special light in mitigation, I just don't think it's one of Commons' best images, sorry. BigDom (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment To explain myself, because I understand criticism regarding this photo's DoF. It was taken from the (quite fast) moving boat. That is why I prioritized shutter speed over DoF here. -- Jakubhal 13:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you, that is a good point. --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Support This can't be taken from land, so quality is OK. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  This argument I don't get. Pictures from watercraft are not necessarily hard to take. It's not like a concert shot or something, where you sometimes can say "good, given the difficult light conditions"... --A.Savin 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @A.Savin: There are restrictions, e.g. a tripod can't be used, which is the easiest way to increase the deep of field, while keeping the same aperture and ISO. Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why on Earth should a tripod have been used here? The photo has an exposure time of as short as 1/400. --A.Savin 12:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose I understand the challenges of the image but per A.Savin, the quality on the right is just too poor and ruins the image overall. Unfortunately that's an essential part of the building. Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Abstain as an author of the original photo -- Jakubhal 13:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough overall. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per A. Savin and Poco -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)