Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenheim 2013 06 dawn panini pan.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 08:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schloss Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I used panino as a compromise between curved edges (cylindrical) and far too heavy distortion (rectilinear). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose shadows are disturbing here strongly --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I would have brightened the shadows just a little bit maybe. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 04:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 08:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I looked several times on the photo and finally decided to oppose: Surely, we have very nice light here - the photo transports nice morning mood. Shadows are no general problem for me if they are not on important parts of the main object. In the case here the very strong shadows on the roof and on the left part of the facade are very disturbing. The roof and its structure is imho important. I am also not fully convinced of the perspective. Due to the strong side perspective the left part of the building is overemphasized. If you take a look on the thumb you can get the impression that the edges of the building are slightly curved - I know from own stitchings that this problem is diffucult to avoid but in the case here it is visible due to the clear structure of the building. Probably you can provide some background information regarding shooting time and perspective - I guess centered perspective at 12:00 on the same date had been better. Or in the noon at 15:30 from your shooting position - strong shadows had been avoided. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Wladyslaw, Christian Ferrer, Tuxyso: Thank you for the detailed reviews.
    Regarding the shadows: I wanted to show (as you recognised) the morning mood here, and decided to not shoot the building at a later time to avoid relatively flat and boring light. I agree that the shadow right in the center of the image is not ideal, I have now tried to brighten the shadows in general and this one in particular some more. I think the central section of the roof is also much more visible now. Did this improve the image?
    Regarding the perspective: I also liked that the trees on the right created a shadow on the grass that highlights the position of the building on a hill. A symmetrical shot would not be able to show that, but would of course represent the building itself slightly better. The symmetrical shot I took a little earlier is quite boring in my opinion (apart from quality problems). So I decided to accept the slight curvature here. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very little brightening of the shadows will not change a lot the image. A good thing when we bright an image is to increase a bit the saturation (or maybe the vibrance) to keep the nice mood. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the shadows a lot in the last edit, and did increase saturation a little in the process (even though the thumbnails don't seem to update). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good IMO, thank you. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer your centered image :) A few hours later had been perfect regarding shadows. In your nomination important (symmetrical) characteristics of the building come not out well. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I'll have to live with that. :) Maybe I should sometimes ignore how much I like the look of morning grass in the Sun. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]