Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Poort Arentshof.jpg

Image:Poort Arentshof.jpg

#1  #2  #3 

Left image, not featured

•  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose For Now Vertical lines should be vertical. Otherwise I like it. --Digon3 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Romary 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support #1 for now (at it is more natural). Verdy p 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Original version I really don't see why this had to be perspective corrected... it's not like it was tilted. Benh 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Please create a separate section for the new version using the correct format, so that both version appear in the contents table (check other nominations). Alvesgaspar 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral It seems like an average scene to me, but it's technically pretty good. -- Ram-Man 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Central image, not featured

•  Info Picture #2: vertical lines straightened -- MJJR 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change the light balance in #2 (which looks now overexposed) ?

Note that not all vertical linescan be parallel in this snapshot because they are at different depths. Trying to correct this reduces the visual depth and introduces an aberration, sort of "fish eye" effect where dimensions seem too large at the top of the image (but this feeling may have been cause by your change of light balance). I see that #2 contains parts of your own original that were clipped in proposal #1 (the bottom of the trunk on the right).

Well, the correction of verticals seems correct, but could you please restore the light, color and dimensions (that were better) ? Despite this, I like both images (I'd like to vote for #2, but because of your color/light changes I still prefer the original) : just use a trapezoidal transform to push the top right corner to the right, then clip the small triangle on the right to make a rectangle.

Anyway, #2 is less clipped, so it would be good to have your original width, with the better looking apparenceoflight and colors you made in #1 (the correction of verticals is not absolutely necessary as this gives a non natural depth). Verdy p 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment The verticals in this edit were what I was looking for, but I liked the color/light changes of the original. #3's verticals still seem tilted (I am mainly looking at the brick gate. --Digon3 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Verticals in #3 adjusted, as asked by Digon3, although right part of the brick gate is still not perfect... -- MJJR 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The verticals are great in #2. If you can get the color in #2 the same as #1, create a new nomination and put it at the top. I appreciate all the work you are doing for this. --Digon3 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I do'nt have a calibrated screen for full control of the colors. So, if you want perhaps to try editing #2: feel free! -- MJJR 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right image, not featured

•  Info For those who like vertical lines: Picuture #3 is the same as #1 (same colors, same light balance, same cropping, etc), but with straightened lines. -- MJJR 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment: Replaced by adjusted image on June 7 -- MJJR 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)