Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont Saint-Michel at night - BeBo86.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Mont Saint-Michel at night - BeBo86.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 13:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mont Saint-Michel at dusk/night
  •  Info created by BeBo86 - uploaded by BeBo86 - nominated by BeBo86 -- BeBo86 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- BeBo86 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Oppose Wow - awesome picture. But: sharpness issues, unfortunately. Anything you can do? Did you take another shot? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Martin Falbisoner: thanks for your comment. In this case, one big problem was tourists crossing the new built bridge, so all shots were a bit shaky. (Note: I have downsampled it a bit now, as a consequence of perspective correction.) Level of detail is comparable to the existing FP of Mont Saint-Michel BeBo86 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BeBo86: : Hmm, well, what the heck... I really like your image and I do understand how difficult night shots are. The photo does look better now, and though downsampling as such is never a good solution... I'll change my vote to weak  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sharpness is OK for me (night shot). Composition and motive is very nice. I will support the image if you correct the verticals (take a look at the very left building) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Much bigger than the other FP of it I'm aware of ;) So could have been a nice replacement (I would have seen no reason to keep both which are similar). But the sharpness issue largely nullifies this improvement. Composition wise I don't see why the mount is not centered (the empty space on the right adds no value). Not a fan of the scaffoldings either. - Benh (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Benh: Compared to the other file, level of detail is close to equal - yes. "Improvements" could be: less overexposed areas (thanks to exposure bracketing), more pleasing colors, more interesting sky (which gives the picture depth), and corrected perspective (thanks to Tuxyso) which the other file has not. I like the composition as it is, because a) I like the blurred clouds b) the composition doesn't look too centered and c) the result is a nice 16:9 picture :-) The scaffoldings are a pity but they simply are there BeBo86 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I wonder why the image wasn't taken a bit earlier. Were the lights only switched on by then? Personally, I would like more light, both in the sky and on the darker parts of the rock. --DXR (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info This was also because of tourists crossing the bridge (and the picture). This was the first moment with no tourist crossing my view (but you can see bicycles with lights coming from the left ;-) The alternative was to shoot from the handrail on the other side of the bridge, but on this side there was kind of a dam which didn't look good in the foreground (currently there's a building site!). BeBo86 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, even though I would probably have tried to combine shots to remove the tourists but fair enough. Looking at suncalc, the sun would have been quite a bit to the left so that would have worked, probably. BTW: Imho it's not good to remove the EXIF with a later upload. --DXR (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to mention I faced the exact same problem on my own shot (to a lesser extent, it was taken at winter time). Mont Saint-Michel is one of the busiest site in France. About using several shots to remove people, I'm a bit skeptical ; light decreases fast. Not sure it would be so easy to used empty parts from other pictures (possible to adjust exposure but depending on the number of people to erase, could drive one crazy ;) ). - Benh (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for sure it isn't easy, but we are talking FP here, and if it takes a few hours in PS, it does. But granted, that's a bit academic now. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the photo as it is (also the decentered composition with the links from the street going through the picture). Level of detail / sharpness is sufficient for me. Regarding the shooting time: I guess the sun sets at the very left part of the photo. If BeBo86 had shot earlier there had been problems with backlight. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the sun is much farther on the left, so "backlight" is not really an issue here. The people, on the other hand... - Benh (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support. I like the dark blueish background and the lightning is good - a few places some minor problems with exposure control, but is is quite difficult to avoid in such kinds of photos. I especially like the mood of the lower buildings to the right. My biggest problem is the per-pixel quality for a 3.6 Mpixel image. I would have opposed if it was daylight. At these conditions it is harder, and for me it just passes the FP bar quality-wise.--Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but per above. Yes, it is an iconic location and I understand the choice of time, but in my opinion the quality just is not good enough to be the best of commons --DXR (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 07:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mont_Saint-Michel_at_night_-_BeBo86.jpg&oldid=133300033"