Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg

File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 17:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Julia W
•  Support -- Julia\^talk 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• I love the composition and the mood. But the technical accomplishment is not so good IMO. The image looks bit washed out and not so sharp in some parts (in 100% view). Maybe you have made a RAW which you could reprocess it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have a go with my RAW originals. Julia\^talk 23:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think it looks washed out at all. If anything it's particularly crisp as a result of the nice blue sky and sun facing the building directly. It is a little unsharp though. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- great mood and composition, maybe a tiny bit overprocessed (saturation and/or contrast) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Harmonic composition. I would crop out the tiny reflections on the very left (see note), but that's only a matter of personal taste. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 02:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice, but apart from the sharpness, there are also some red borders (CA), can you fix that? Poco² 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Temporary  Oppose to avoid speedy promotion if the bot restarts. Jee 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose technical issues --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not that sharp, some noise and CA, need of a perspective correction. (Technical issues).--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park House panorama, 2013.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg

•  Info Taking into account the CA and softness that have been mentioned, I have used a different set of photos and created a panorama. The resolution is higher and there are more details, but it is also sharper I think. I removed the CA too (thought honestly I saw very little to begin with). Sorry to add this so late, have been too busy.
•  Support I prefer this one, it is better. Julia\^talk 22:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support this one's even better. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Better. Jee 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm undecided. It seems a bit too much contrast/clarity, compared to the other one which had softer shadows. Perhaps in the other one the shadows were lifted a bit. And both were taken at the same time, more or less, so conditions would be expected to be the same. The angle of the building has changed -- is this due to a change in camera position or attempt at fixing horizontal perspective with software? If the latter, I'm not sure about it -- flipping between the two I kind of prefer the look of the former and the new one seems slightly wrong but I can't put my finger on it. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• My Lightroom history shows that yes, I did lift shadows in the original, and forgot to do the same in the new stitched frames, so that would be the difference you see there, as I left contrast untouched and clarity only a very little. I can fix that and upload over the top. I was in a different position between these two (further to the right for the original), which will account for the different angle, as I didn't fix perspective in either of these. Also bear in mind that the first is just a single frame at 24 mm and the second is a stitch of four images, each at 33 mm. I'm not sure what I can do about the fact that it seems 'slightly wrong' to you, as I don't know what you mean really and I think they both look okay. Julia\^talk 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect my concern about angle is just from flipping between the two and apparently seeing the building change angle without an obvious shift in location of camera. I would prefer the shadows to be less contrasty, but it is your picture and I won't oppose. -- Colin (talk)

• I lifted the shadows from RAW and restitched. Using a different projection this time gave me a slightly better result that is more like the original. Uploaded over the top. Julia\^talk 19:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Wladyslaw
•  Comment This is not an alternative, but another nomination (different file). Sharpness is better, CA are out, but noise remains in dark parts. Persp. correct. is still needed IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg