Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg

File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2013 at 21:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg

•  Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Yarl -- Yarl ✉ 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Yarl ✉ 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's an eye-catching picture. But the contrast has been boosted too far resulting in clipped highlights (loss of detail on the building) and blocked shadows. The JPG has no defined/embedded colour-space either. Colin (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Agree with Colin that there is some clipping, but mostly it's just specular highlights and patches of red-channel clipping, so good enough for me to support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that fussing about blown specular highlights is often mistaken, but brick/stone/concrete doesn't produce specular highlights -- you need something mirror smooth like metal or water to get specular highlights. I think more subtle processing could save the detail while still producing a bold image. It is clearly not straight-from-camera (there's very little EXIF data, so some program has removed it) so I hope the creator can rework it. Colin (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the windows. As for the wall, at least it's not blown out in all three channels. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Support (due to recent changes --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)) I like the overall look of the photo. A very nice compositon with warm light where the street lighting is well integrated into the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per King of Hearts, Tuxyso --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessing, per Colin. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for 2013-10-29T17:17:33. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Enhancement is not bad thing though this one is too far. --Laitche (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support current (at the time I'm voting.) version. Nice composition anyway. --Laitche (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Felix König ✉ 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Laitche.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Info I've done some changes to this picture. Take look at it now. Some overexposed areas are still there - but I think it is ok. The sun have been reflecting from building's windows. --Jar.ciurus 08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the previous version was imho much better. I've changed my vote to neutral. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I like both versions. Previous has strong contrast and is darker. Actual is more soft and lighter. But if we discuss the "previous" image, so I've decided to restore previous version. I shoot photos in RAW, so I can develop RAW images in many ways. --Jar.ciurus 08:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • In such a case it is better to make an alternative nomination because the previous pro votes are for the original version. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with Tuxyso that using a different filename & alt-nomination helps. I think your intermediate version is over-exposed, but at least it shows all the detail was captured. So I'd prefer something a little darker overall, showing texture on the building, but perhaps with shadows lifted a bit to retain detail in the trees. Also, what raw converter and/or editor are you using? Please make sure you pick a colourspace (sRGB is best for the web) and make sure it saves this detail in the JPG. Colin (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Info Colin gave quite good solution. ;) - I've uploaded new wersion. :) Shadows have been lifted and highlights corrected. There are details both in lights and shadows. What do you think now? (Next time I'll just upload a new file, but this time let it be) I use LR 4.4 and PS. I export images in "to the web" mode, every image has added sRGB profile. --Jar.ciurus User talk:Jar.ciurus 16:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support version 16:17, 29 October 2013. However, you're still not saving the colour profile and I would appreciate if you could fix this so it displays the right colours for everyone. Have you got the "Metadata" section of the export dialog set to strip everything but copyright? Perhaps that's removing this vital info? Test it with this tool. I would strongly recommend you post your latest as another file with alternative nomination, though, as I don't consider any of your previous votes as valid for this one, and some may still not like this one. Colin (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

• I've uploaded new version of the file and nominated it to QI. Please look at it. I think now everything is ok. --Jar.ciurus User talk:Jar.ciurus 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment It needs a perspective correction, see right side where everything is leaning in. Poco² 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Where it needs perspective correction? Vertical lines are not tilted. Jar.ciurus User Talk:Jar.ciurus 13:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know whether that comment is about the original or alt. I edited your comment to make the alt. JKadavoor Jee 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JKadavoor Jee 10:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg