Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpg

File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - Very attractive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose for a tripod shoot with ISO 125 surprising noisy (look e.g. at the white fassade). Overall a good fotography that doesn't thrill me. Beside of this: this image was obviously not taken from a public approachable place so we have no panorama of freedom here and I question the rightfulness of this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Freedom of panorama in Singapore is OK for 3D objects and all the buildings, see this category. The noise is normal for a night shot and the resolution is high enough, compare for example with this FP shot from the same roof -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't say s.th. against the resolution. But the noise is not good, especially for such a camera like the 5D Mark IV. Read the definition of FoP carefully and you will see that this image doesn't fit in. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Definition of FoP -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a definition for FoP, but an explanation. The location where this picture was taken from the observation deck of the Marina Bay Sands Hotel. The access to this point causes costs, is private ground of the hotel and therefore not a public place in the common definition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• You may misunderstand something concerning the FoP. This building (The Fullerton Hotel) is located in a public place, so whatever the origin of the camera, from a roof, a window, or a drone, that's this building which is considered. Here there are plenty of similar views from this observation deck, and they are all valid -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• The existance of a category in Commons is not a valid proof. FoP means in many countries that your place, where you have taken the image, hast to be public. For sure you're able to show me the law of Singapure where this point is not relevant. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Singapore Copyright Act says in its Section 64 : "The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast". You may read Wikipedia to learn more about the freedom of panorama, or ask the Village pump. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Taxiarchos228: I think you are premising German FoP law here, which is indeed very restrictive. The relevant one, however, is COM:FOP#Singapore: there is no such limitation, that the camera location has to be as publicly accessible as the photographed building. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

   Comment It is no aerial photo (not taken from an aircraft), I'm going to remove these categories now. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per Ikan. And i don't see any problem with noise. Nice quality IMO. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition, noise is OK, and light is very well managed (that's the most important issue). Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support A lack of noise --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I find no reason to hold back. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Weak support --Laitche (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition looks unbalanced with the dominant building in the back. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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