Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 20:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support. Some parts of the image (mainly the sky) seem a little bit flat (lacking in contrast and saturation) but otherwise very well done technically. Diliff (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but looking at it I have the impression that spines are leaning out to each side (overcorrected?), the tourists, the roof on the right, the top of the shadow in the middle or the motorbikes are not helping, either, but that could pass. Poco211:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. My image could be, but the reason I nominate just to know how to nominate a picture. Common, how many times did you review your picture? It's clearly no highlights, color is not nice. See again, in detail, motorbikes, people, ... do you think your picture is OK? Is it neutral if you support your image? I WILL NEVER DO that even policies allow. Open your eyes, pls. Alphama (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes are pretty open and see that you nominate pictures far below requirements and falsify your voting requirements. I´ll raise this at the discussion page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The voting of Alphama is not to count because his basic release of it was at a time he didn't reach the voting requirements of FPC. I don't strike this voting again (Alphama made canceled my striking) because I don't want to cause a edit war. But the fact is cleary in this case. See also: here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the quality and the building, but I think that the angle of your photo that is shown on the dewiki article is better and not so extreme (I would definitely support that one). The construction works are also a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question As a totally novice and in architecture, I'm genuinely wondering where is the wow factor here? The light is flat, the point of view has nothing special, and the building itself with its non-appealing colors is not so sexy visually speaking even though I'm sure it has plenty of merits from an architectural/historical point of view. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have reworked the image totally and corrected the perspective to avoid the impression of overcorrecting. Now we have also a bit different crop so that the roof on the right edge is not disturbing anymore. Further I have corrected a bit the curves. Kadellar and David: please have a look if you support the image with this changes too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality (details) and light are nice, but the composition is imho imbalanced. I wished more space at the front. Usually it looks better to have more space on the front than on the sky part, see for example Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg. Noch mal auf Deutsch: Die Qualität (insbesondere die Details) und das Licht sind sehr gut. Allerdings wirkt die Komposition auf mich unausgewogen. Meist sieht es gefälliger aus, wenn Vorne etwas mehr Platz gelassen wird und nicht identisch mit dem Himmel zugeschnitten wird, s. z.B. Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg. BTW: Questioning voting eligibility in the case of unwanted votes as done above is debatable. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dein Vergleichsbild hinkt ein wenig weil im Falle von Thyssen-Krupp der Vordergrund Wasser ist, was mit der Spiegelung einen zusätzlichen fotografischen Mehrwert schafft, was im Falle des Münstersplatzes mit seinem Kopfsteinpflaster nicht der Fall ist. Ich lasse generell auch gerne Raum, habe mich aber hier zu diesem Beschnitt entschieden weil der vordere Teil des Platzes im Schatten liegt, keinen informativen Mehrwert hat und nach meinem subjektiven Empfinden der Bildkomposition nicht dient. Aber generell habe ich genug Reserve diverse Beschnitte zu machen. Erschwertend kommt hier hinzu: dadurch dass man aufgrund der Bebauung links und rechts stark limitiert ist würde bei noch mehr Vordergrund das Bild ein unüblich hohes Format erhalten. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verstehe deine Argumentation. Um zu beurteilen, ob ein weiterer Beschnitt vorne evtl. doch besser ist, bräuche man in der Tat ein Vergleichsbild. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In der Versionsgeschichte der Bilddatei findest du die Vorversion mit mehr Sicht auf den Platz. Generell habe ich noch deutlich mehr Reserven (mein Originalbild auf dem Rechner hat über 280 Megapixel) aber es zeigt eben nur schattigen Platz, immerhin ohne Passanten oder irgendwelchen Objekten. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the version with more space at the front. I guess you also had problems with surronding building on your current nom, didn't you? Have stamped out something (a good idea here)? Probably you can add {{Photo}}-template and {{Panorama}}-template and add some background information to your shooting technique. Number of images, panoramic hardware (I guess you used a pano head here), focal length of the single shots, panoramic software, for an example see File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I promoted it on QIC, but as I see this was a different version. The resolution of the current one is much higher, yet there seem to be some perspective issues now which wasn't the case in the previous version. That was technically correct, very sharp and with a resolution I still cannot produce, but without unnecessarily bloated size like now. I prefer the previous version. --A.Savin09:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A higher resolution creats a higher file size. We have here perspective issues? Can you explain. This image is still very sharp IMO but I have no problem whith downsizing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: it looks curious, but it is a single shoot (this image is a single shot) and definitly NO stitching error.
Oppose Perspective issues, church towers are not vertical, one stitching error (note added), retouching marks on the right. --Ivar (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: what is better: the impression of overcorrecting perspective or acceptable incorrectnes of vertical and horizontal lines? The minor stitching error and marks are corrected easily. I guess I start a 2nd candidate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is good but looking at it I have the impression that spines are leaning out to each side (overcorrected?), the tourists, the roof on the right, the top of the shadow in the middle or the motorbikes are not helping, either, but that could pass. Poco2 11:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment I like the quality and the building, but I think that the angle of your photo that is shown on the dewiki article is better and not so extreme (I would definitely support that one). The construction works are also a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Question As a totally novice and in architecture, I'm genuinely wondering where is the wow factor here? The light is flat, the point of view has nothing special, and the building itself with its non-appealing colors is not so sexy visually speaking even though I'm sure it has plenty of merits from an architectural/historical point of view. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
