Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kanalnetz Wiesbaden 2009-09-12 04 pregamma 1 reinhard02 key 0.18 phi 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Kanalnetz Wiesbaden 2009-09-12 04 pregamma 1 reinhard02 key 0.18 phi 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 12:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created and uploaded by paddy, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose thumbnail looks nice but in full version you can see a lot of quality problems especially in darker areas. --Avala (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)- Oppose Great shot, but unfortunately the technical quality IMO is not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Info The picture was very difficult to make. I could not see the spirit level, did not even see the controls of my camera without the use of my fire lighter and the three HDRI images had an extremely long duration of exposure. Also it was the first time ever to visit the sewer publicly without application to the operating company and supposedly will be until next year. Also I gained access to the point where I took the picture because the security personal was friendly enough to let me step behind a restriction. I do not know if it was wise of me to upload the maximum size of this image. Also I tried to avoid postprocessing the picture (what I have done you can figure with help of the filename and the programme qtpfsgui). Not all of these factors make the picture better maybe only rarer but maybe you take one or the other point into consideration. --Paddy (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support, because a good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph Airwolf (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paddy (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Technical quality is not bad at all, really only minor and unimportant flaws that do not prevent the wow! -- H005
15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC) - Oppose In the area around the light it is pixeley (sorry I don't know the technical terms) in the full version. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support I find it OK! Rastrojo (D•ES) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF - Burned highlights Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support For Airwolf. Jacopo Werther (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support like Airwolf says.--Stanzilla (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per Airwolf. Wpedzich (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - blown hilights. Great composition but the technical problems are a deal breaker for me. Cacophony (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Problems with quality. —kallerna™ 09:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose After several days of deliberation, I have decided to oppose this one. While the image is very pretty and the composition is great, the technical problems are there and are significant, the grainy structure surrounding the blown highlights being especially unpleasant. The shot, given the particular situation (extremely low light) was challenging indeed, but that doesn't make the scenery a difficult subject in general: With strong lighting gear, it should be no problem to retake the picture with a shorter exposure time and a more balanced dynamic range, eliminating the sharpness problems, the image noise and the overexposure around the lamp. -- JovanCormac 06:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I share Jovan's thoughts --S23678 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
