Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg

File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 16:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg

•  Info Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue, São Paulo, Brazil. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- FritsHG ^{eh? 12:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)}. Not valid vote. You need almost 100 edits for vote here. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC) According the rules, it takes more than 50 edits for vote. This user has the necessary. ArionEstar (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment it needs a geotag? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Villy Fink Isaksen:  Done. ArionEstar (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Support wow what a building --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment. I would support, as it's an interesting building, but it seems clear that the brightness is not consistent in the building. It's much brighter at the bottom. I assume it was stitched, perhaps the exposure was not locked. Diliff (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  @Diliff: It is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  Probably, but to do it properly, it would require The Photographer to do it from his original files. Diliff (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks @Diliff: and @ArionEstar: . I will try fix it this weekend. This is a exposition problem easy to fix from RAW files. --The Photographer (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is partially strong CA visible. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks @Taxiarchos228: I will try fix it this weekend, you can use {{CA}} Template --The Photographer (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Please @Diliff: and @Taxiarchos228: , let me know if you are satisfied with the result and the problem is corrected. thank you very much --The Photographer (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Support. Hi The Photographer, yes, much better. The top is a bit noisy as you have brightened it to match the bottom, rather than darkened the bottom to match the top, but given the resolution of the image is high, it's not a major problem. Diliff (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you for your analysis. I found it interesting, as such a thin structure, can have as many wanderings, I have been investigating how it was built. I added some information in the description --The Photographer (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Support nice and interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC) much better now!
•  Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment - much better now, but my support was due to the "wow" but absolut support worthy Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --ArildV (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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