Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpg

File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 09:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 09:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- dllu (t,c) 09:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment dllu its not that yellow, is it ? I would low temperature, and add some more pixles above. --Mile (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Compare against Google Image Search results. dllu (t,c) 10:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support You can still put some pixle above, obviously is a bit "very yellow". Sharpness and noise are perfect and i havent saw mistakes like on other 40-50 MPx. Good. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose We just had File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco January 2014 001.jpg pass here a month or two ago. That image is superior to this one IMHO. lNeverCry 10:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment My photo has vastly superior resolution and sharpness. Anyway, they are taken from different vantage points, so why not feature both? dllu (t,c) 10:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Before I judge this photo, please remove the dust spots. There's one above the right side of the dome, a couple above the middle square (?) above the columns, another two above the left-hand square. Maybe if you look hard, you'll find more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I see several flaws: First, there are too many pure-black areas. The dynamic range isn't handled very well. Then there is too much space at the bottom and the top crop is too tight. Third, as noted above, the white balance seems too warm to me. You can still make this FP IMO but there's still some work to do. --Code (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Are you quite sure that your monitor is properly calibrated? I just (re)checked the histogram, as well as viewing the picture on my calibrated monitor. The shadow detail is perfectly preserved and there are extremely few places that are crushed to pure black. Moreover, on my calibrated monitors, the white balance looks fine to me and is consistent with other pictures of this subject. dllu (t,c) 18:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Well, maybe the shadows aren't pure black but they are still too dark for my taste. What me bothers most is the composition, there's just not enough space at the top. --Code (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment A really nice image, though the sky is a bit noisy. There is not far from a dozen of dust spots in the sky, some are less visibles than the others. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• dllu do you have raw format, just upload on some dropbox etc, we might handle a bit - make alternative. --Mile (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Red channel is slightly blown but I know how hard it is to keep it in check since the palace lights demand a white balance that would make the sky and shadows ridiculously blue, so we can only let the palace go yellow. A big difference between our photos is that you shot it at dusk while I shot it at dawn, so the east-facing elements illuminated only by indirect light (such as the trees) are not black in mine. I generally shy away from shooting blue hour into the sun because of this effect; I had not intended to nominate File:Lower Manhattan from Brooklyn May 2015 panorama.jpg for FP and wanted to go back at sunrise to redo it, but someone jumped the gun and nominated it anyways. Overall, though, the dark areas are not too distracting and this is a high-quality image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The building is fully in focus, the lighting is fine and the lake is well captured. I simply like it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Code, and also KoH explanation for why so much black. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per Colin; also just too many posterized areas. A valiant effort, however. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for the reviews, I will retake this sometime in the future if I can wake up at dawn. dllu (t,c) 05:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative

Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016 alt.jpg

•  Info Alternative version with equirectangular projection, bluer white balance, more sky, raised shadows, recovered highlights, removed spots, and reduced noise. dllu (t,c) 09:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support dllu (t,c) 09:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Question - Is this too brightened to be a realistic representation of what you saw? It feels that way to me, but I wasn't there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• The building was also illuminated by the supermoon, so it wasn't totally dark. dllu (t,c) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• That wasn't really my question. Did it really look like this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• It depends. Human eyesight is capable of remarkable adaptation in how we perceive brightness and colour. dllu (t,c) 10:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To add to this, the only real answer to "did it really look like this" is to look at the raw file from the camera (assumed to be nearly linear). Anything else would be subjective, where there is no right or wrong. dllu (t,c) 10:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, if it's purely subjective on the part of the viewer, I'll  Oppose it for looking washed-out and overbrightened to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I prefer the original nomination. This one seems very unreal to me and the colours look washed out too.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Its looks like some bad HDR, upper version is much better. But something in the middle might be best. --Mile (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for the reviews, I will retake this sometime in the future if I can wake up at dawn. dllu (t,c) 05:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)