Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (16813099494).jpg

File:Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (16813099494).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 16:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (16813099494).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (16813099494).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Bernd Thaller, uploaded and nominated by DnaX -- DnaX (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- DnaX (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment - This is a beautiful shot, but there are some subtle apparent dust spots in the sky and also what looks like some color noise in the shadows. I'd like to support but would feel more comfortable supporting this as an FP after these things are taken care of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I would like to do that, but I don't know if I will risk getting the picture worse using a denoise. About the dust spots, you mean in the sky? Maybe it's just a bit strange clouds --DnaX (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Support - Cool on the clouds. In the shadows, I also saw what I thought might have been a bit of a red chromatic aberration, but I see the same reddish brown in parts of the stones in other pictures, so I deduce that the stones just look like that. If everyone else thinks the noise is de minimis, I won't insist on denoising. For the record, I'm not pixel-peeping at full size, only 300% of the size of my laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support A feat! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I won't pixelpeep this truly awesome image to death... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per Martin, wise as ever. --Cart (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I did pixelpeep, and ... while it's not perfect (a little soft at the sides, and there's some purple CA in the hexafoils of the leftmost window that, the likely outcome of this FPC notwithstanding, should still be cleaned up), I just do not care. This is the sort of image that makes you seriously consider buying the book or the album it's used as cover art for (in fact, its noted defects do give it a more paintinglike quality). Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Support Well, the others said it well. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition but poor quality. --A.Savin 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support wow composition. The scaffoldings and questionable processing (strong NR, very saturated blues) are a bit of a deal breaker. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed, halos along the pillars --Llez (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Llez -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many tone mapping artifacts as per Llez. Moreover the strong tone mapping has flattened the colours a bit. The walls on the left, which are in the shadow, are nearly as bright as the walls on the right in direct sunlight. dllu (t,c) 23:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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