Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Treseburg Halde 1, 2 und 3 im Herbst.jpg

File:Treseburg Halde 1, 2 und 3 im Herbst.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2022 at 11:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Treseburg Halde 1, 2 und 3 im Herbst.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Treseburg Halde 1, 2 und 3 im Herbst.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
•  Info View of the buildings Halde no. 1, 2 and 3 in Treseburg (Germany) in autumn with reflection in the water of the river Bode. Created and uploaded by GZagatta – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I am curious what you think of this photo. I fell in love with it as soon as I saw it in the WLM entries. ;–) Technically, it’s not absolutely perfect (it’s perhaps a tiny little bit dark, and it could be even sharper). But it is very good, and the overall impression is so picturesque and painterly in the best sense of the word, the autumn colours are realistic (not exaggerated, as so often), the reflection is beautiful and the whole picture has a wonderful serene mood. --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support painterly — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Extraordinary mood that captivates me. I would like to have it as an art print hanging in the apartment :) -- Radomianin (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Good reflexion on water, colors and lights. It lacks sharpness a bit, but it doesn't matter. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per all the other comments. --Granada (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 17:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very impressive. Dinkum (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support It sure has a lot going for it. The setting, the very nice reflection, the autumn colours, the "just the right amount of" menacing sky. Could totally be a painting from 19th century. A bit sad about the overall softness. - Benh (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment I see 3 dust spots near the top margin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral a bit dark and has dust spots as Ikan mentions. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Stepro (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support The featured sky and autumn colors really produce a rich mirror image -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 12:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support impressive mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Almost like an oil painting, just wish it were sharper. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose for dust spots, so that this does not get promoted prematurely. I think that, without prejudice to anything else, the dust spots make it not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Dear Ikan, sorry that I did not respond immediately to your remark about the dust spots but I wanted to wait first if anybody else points out similar problems. Now I have uploaded an edited version in which the dust spots are fixed. I have also removed some smaller spots (probably very unsharp birds) from the sky and from the reflection. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• @Rhododendrites, Radomianin, Poco a poco, Yann, and Sebring12Hrs: @Granada, XRay, Dinkum, Benh, and SHB2000: @IamMM, Stepro, Basile Morin, -donald-, and Agnes Monkelbaan: @Iifar, A.Savin, Famberhorst, Charlesjsharp, and Martin Falbisoner: @Wieggy, King of Hearts, and Ermell: Because the changes are so minor, it seems unnecessary and irksome to nominate the edited version as an alternative version. Therefore I have just exchanged the nominated version, i.e. replaced the original version with the edited version in this nomination. I hope this is OK for you. I have not changed the brightness and not sharpened the photo because IHMO these would be much more controversial changes. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  LGTM. I  Support this. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Aristeas, minor correction such as dustspots do not require to produce a separate file. Please merge. Regards --A.Savin 09:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• And don't require either having to inform everybody, I believe. Poco a poco (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• IMHO this depends. I would regard it as very impolite if anybody would edit one of my photos and upload the edited version over my original version, even when only some dustspots have been removed. Anybody is free to do with my photos what they want, as long as the requirements of the license are fulfilled, but please upload the edited version under another filename. I know that quite some other photographers here hold the same opinion. In addition the photo in question was elected as one of the winners of WLM 2022 Germany, but that assessment applies only to the original version. Therefore IMHO it is always saver to upload an edited version under a new filename.
  But now the situation has changed – the original uploader, GZagatta, has edited the file himself and uploaded the edited version. Now we could indeed merge both files because the edited version is by the auther himself.
  So, if anybody knows an easy way to merge the two files under the original filename, please do so. I am not an admin, I cannot merge two files easily. However it is not necessary to merge them, it’s still everything OK as it is.
  Being told that it was an error to ping everybody about the change, I will not ping anybody again. I just wanted to be correct, but when people consider pinging them as impolite, well, I will not do that anymore. And I'm just wondering if I should nominate pictures here at all – I want to help people, and the common good, and all what I get from you are lectures, warnings and criticism by people who think they know everything better. Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Aristeas. You should not wonder too much! Just do what your heart tells you. Then it is always good and many people appreciate your good intentions.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Agree as per Famberhorst. Respectfully to all contributors, though, I understand and concur with Aristeas' points. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Merged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you very very much, King of ♥! --Aristeas (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Opposing vote crossed out. Thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Idyllic Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany