Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phanom Rung Wikimedia Commons.jpg

File:Phanom Rung Wikimedia Commons.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 05:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Phanom Rung Wikimedia Commons.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phanom Rung Wikimedia Commons.jpg

•  Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790^{Say whatever you want} 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- патриот8790^{Say whatever you want} 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment no gps info Ggia (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Will add it, but that's really relevant... phanom rung temple can easily be found on a map, unlike many wild places... - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral that's for sure a nice photo but this centred composition doesn't really convince me. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't see how I could have made it otherwise... sometimes, it's just better to stick to centered composition. I also think it fits encyclopedic purposes well, and after all, this is mainly what this picture is for. - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not in general against centered composition. Here it seems a bit too straight-forward. It is really a good photo, I definitly tend to pro. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose. I don't really like the projection of this as the edges are curved like a fisheye lens. Could it be stitched without this curvature? Diliff (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's fisheye projection actually :) So yes that's on purpose, I understand it may not be to the taste of everyone, but I find it give much more impressive feeling than a straight projection such as cylindrical or alike. This seems to be a good example of where spherical projection is better (if I look at the supports). Will try to stitch it again tonight, but am afraid of missing time. - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I also want to nominate this cause I really love it I've cut it 16:9 and use it as desktop background now but I didn't did cause of the fisheyelook. I thought that this look wouldn't get much consend. But imo this it what makes the picture works, the wall framed the pic and the curves at the borders channel the view straight to the temple. Very nice! bg mathias K 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support So what ? Isn't it allowed to be centered ? This picture is really good. I support it. Trace (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Diliff. Fisheye distortion, in this case and in my opinion, does not work in this instance. This is considering that the distortion creates a visual distraction on what is otherwise an interesting subject. I would probably support without distortion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ditto to Diliff & Tomascastelazo. Also the clouds look a bit odd, as if underexposed compared to the buildings. - MPF (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• My opinion is that clouds add a dramatic touch that makes this pic standing out a little. You've got to be a bit lucky to get them like that : just there's must be just little room for sun to lit the subject bright enough so that the sky is not overexposed (if you pay attention, you'll see a little blue in the upper corner, where sun rays could find a way through to). No cheating such as exposure blending or playing with curves here... if that's what you meant. - Benh (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I opened the panorama yesterday and it's actually a blending a three exposures panorama, certainly hence your feeling of undereposure in the sky. So I apologize. Now I'm embarassed... but... I believe this is more close to what could be seen then, and most often, it is the sky which is overexposed in such conditions, rather that it being underexposed in my picture. IMO the blending still keeps a natural look, which has even driven my wrong... I should be able to restitch it this week, and will renominate myself. - Benh (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support --Achird (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I have no problem with the fisheye distortion or the centered composition.
•  Oppose Fisheye distortion distracts from the character of the subject. --Elekhh (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Ggia (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose (Fisheye distortion would be a nonsense without centering in this case, IMO). Centering is not a problem to me, but fisheye distortion is. Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per David.   • Richard • [®] • 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate choice of projection. Lycaon (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose verticals are not straight. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --daNASCAT @TheThirdTurn/@Wikia (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)