Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bucharest - Smârdan Street (28547822606).jpg

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

File:Bucharest - Smârdan Street (28547822606).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 13:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Smârdan Street in the Old Town of Bucharest, Romania.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info created by Bukarester - uploaded by Bukarester - nominated by Bukarester -- Bukarester (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Bukarester (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I can see how the sunlight building caught your eye, sandwiched between the buildings on either side. You've clearly pointed the camera up, perhaps to try to get the top in the frame or to avoid a busy street below. But the result is converging verticals, which have not been corrected in software. I think the building on the far right isn't so interesting as it is in shadow. And the leftmost part of the left building is also rather plain, so those could be cropped out perhaps (or hold the camera portrait, which might give you the vertical height you need). I see from your EXIF you have Contrast=High, Sharpness=Hard. I suspect this might be making the image look a bit over-processed. Consider using more standard/neutral settings on your camera, or else take raw rather than JPG and use a raw image processor like Lightroom, which I can strongly recommend. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea, however, Overexposition fix was too far changing whites for greys (look left building), denoise artifacts, right building too harsh underexposed, sky posterization (see notes) --The Photographer 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Bukarester: Since you are rather new to this section and probably only ended up here since you tried to get your picture as Picture of the Day, you may not be familiar with the rules. If you want to end a nomination you have to put {{withdrawn}} and sign your post instead of just removing the nomination. Colin wrote that in the edit summary, but I doubt you saw that. cart-Talk 18:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I agree that this photo is not featurable, for the reasons given above, but I would like to encourage you, because you had a good compositional idea here. My only real disagreement with the composition (aside from questions of lighting dealt with above, etc.) is that it would be better to crop out the bit of a building you have near the left margin. The rest is technique and practice. I hope you will eventually be able to nominate a featurable picture in time. Meanwhile, I'd suggest for you to frequent Commons:Photography critiques for more advice, and after a while, COM:Quality images candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Ikan and others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]