Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 56.JPG

File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 56.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 21:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 56.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 56.JPG

•  Info Blue hour shot of the Prince Philip Science Museum, part of the City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain. The 40,000 m² museum was opened on November 13th 2000 and was designed by Santiago Calatrava. All by me, Poco² 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support  Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Calatrava may waste tons of money (usually taxpayers', at that) but dammit, his buildings at least photograph well. A little noise in the sky, but nothing to lose sleep over. And I wish that little cloud on the left weren't there, but it's too small to ruin this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  I have cloned out the cloud and improved the sharpening mask to reduce the noise in the sky Poco² 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Strong support A bit unsharp towards the edges but, my god, what a wow! --Kreuzschnabel 06:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. It's well captured but I can't help but think that the angle chosen really does not show the building's architecture well. The internet is overflowing with images of this building and most of them have a better angle IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  Diliff: That's a matter of taste in my opinion. Evaluating the picture overall I think that the lighting and detail of this one beats those you linked. I also have one picture in Commons with the building shown from the other side and from a wider angle, but still prefer this one. Maybe you are right that a view from the other side / different angle could have more encyclopedic value showing the building better, but that isn't IMHO all that matters. Poco² 09:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course it's a matter of taste and I never implied otherwise - all my statements included 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. ;-) I also agree that the detail of your image beats the ones I linked as they are all downsampled web images. I did say I thought your image was well captured. It's hard to compare lighting because most of the images I linked to were taken in daylight. I was using them only to compare angles to explain that the angle you chose was not as interesting or aesthetic for me, because many of the sweeping architectural flourishes are absent or not exhibited clearly. The last linked image taken at night does have better lighting though IMO because the building is lit from the interior, although was taken a bit late in the blue hour for me. Diliff (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --XRay ^talk 11:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

* Oppose Agree with Diliff, very hard for eyes, not sure what is straigth. There is something more of an issue - PD. If you check street lamps on the left, and some sticks of rigth side, this photo need distortion correction. --Mile (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Better now, PD corrected. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mile: there was indeed some perspective distortion, it should look fine now in the uploaded version. Poco² 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  Regarding the perception about what should be straight I find it easy when there is water, an object and its reflexion must always be vertical. Poco² 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support I like the view, it is different from the typical shots. --Kadellar (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support this building is a work of art, and this perspective on it is interesting. The corners are a little soft but overall I think this is an interesting and beautiful photo. --Pine^✉ 21:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's a sin to be creative (or take the road less traveled) in your photography by using, as in this case, an unconventional perspective. I find the elements in this photo (i.e. the lighting, the angle, and the focused crop) very convincing in conveying an almost sci-fi ambiance. That is quite appropriate for a science building. Most other photos of this subject do not achieve such a reaction from the viewer. Well done.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fotoriety, not sure if that comment was referencing my oppose based on the angle, but I thought the other angles I linked to actually gave it much more of a sci-fi ambiance. This angle, for me, looks more like we're viewing the loading docks of a transportation warehouse, albeit a fairly elaborate one. ;-) Vews such as this one really make it look sci-fi to me, like something out of the film Alien. Diliff (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @ Diliff: I can definitely appreciate your opinion and no doubt i have massive respect for you & your photography, but perhaps there is a strong element of one's own taste in determining the level of appreciation for this photograph...i can respect that too. All the positive factors in the photo (IMO), i mentioned above, simply do it for me, but perhaps not for you: there's nothing wrong with that and that doesn't make either of us right or wrong.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed, please don't take me the wrong way, I wasn't trying to forcefully change your mind, I was just trying to engage with you since your comments seemed to refer to mine. I do agree that it's a matter of opinion and there is no 'right answer' and it seems clear from the other comments that I'm in a minority. Nobody else seems to have really said why they prefer this angle over the other angles possible though, so there's been little to change my mind either. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• strong  Support absolutely awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support  Awesome! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• nice but please have a look at my annotations --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  I removed the dust spot -among other improvements- but cannot increase sharpness of the background. Poco² 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support aseptic, in a way. But Wow for me.--Hubertl (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support-- Pierre André (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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