Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg

File:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 12:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 12:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- ELEKHH^T 12:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice architecture. But the composition does not work: crop is very tight, the car in the bottom left corner is disturbing, the whole image is very busy. And why a night shot? At daytime, it would look much more impressive, I'm sure. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The image illustrates typical nightlife in the city. It certainly looks different during the day and that could be a separate FP. --ELEKHH^T 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - motion blur on the car, bottom left corner. Otherwise, a very nice QI. --Claritas (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • IMO the car does not need to be sharp, is better blurred since is not the subject. --ELEKHH^T 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The motion blur on the car in my opinion distracts the viewers attention from the main subject. --Claritas (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support good general quality Cathy Richards (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Elekhh regarding the blurred car. --Cayambe (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Casa Milá is spectacular, but very difficult to shoot. Too many cars and people over the place, with many trees in front of the building. Maybe an aerial shot would do, but this one doesn't look featurable to me. Agree with elekhh too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

   Comment There are technical possibilities to avoid the problem of crowds in front of subjects of interest: either a long(!) exposure in the order of several minutes, half an hour or more, maybe using a neutral density filter (thus, moving objects do not interfere with the data registration of the static scene) or a stack of enough single captures in "Median" stacking mode in Photoshop. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - For starters I am curious why this wasn't taken during the day time, the lack of lighting and shadows are distracting. Also, I do not care for the crop or the blurry car in the corner. Defiantly QI worthy though. Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- The blurred car does actually show a bit, for an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral I fail to get how an image taken at dusk is necessarily worst than a daytime shot... Night shot can be more pleasing, and not least detailed (the subject is lit). The comments on car and crowd can be justified, but these are mitigated by the fact that the dusk slot is short and, well, if the place is busy in real life, I see nothing wrong with having people on it. It's not like they detract this much from main subject when looking the picture as a whole. On the cons side, I think crop is tight and size is a bit small. And maybe composition could be better (more centered). - Benh (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)