Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPG

File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 12:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPG

-15

3179

4928

1305

8687

4499

loss of detail in white areas

4373

3599

1288

885

8687

4499

blown red

6395

3494

2232

990

8687

4499

blown red

3160

1200

2501

1320

8687

4499

sharpened noise and some posterization

60

3014

4823

1440

8687

4499

loss of detail on white areas

60

3179

944

1260

8687

4499

blown red

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info Lots of teddy bears in a teddy bear shop in Lima, Peru. Poco² 12:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 12:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent, the visible distortion in the corners doesn't really bother me. I guess even a fisheye lense could produce wonderful results here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Nice idea but  Oppose for technical reasons: Overexposure on some white areas, altogether hopelessly oversaturated (red channel blown on many red objects), noisy, looks oversharpened at full view (sharpened noise speckles). See annotations. Especially in an image like this I would appreciate a high level of detail. I’d suggest to re-process (less contrast, less saturation) and re-nominate. --Kreuzschnabel 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel: I've uploaded a new version where I have tried to address your issues. Please, take into consideration that this is no studio picture (no tripods allowed, lots of people, bad lighting) and I do see lots of details actually. Doing a panorama hier to get more detail was almost imposible as the items in the botton where next to the walking path. Poco² 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Better on the whites but the red still does not look nice to me. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 08:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I feel some fear to see so many stuffed animals --The Photographer (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't feel this focal length suits this subject. The stuffed animals in the corners are hopelessly distorted. I appreciate that you chose this focal length for a reason (people around) but for me it just doesn't work. But others might not mind it! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I certainly don't mind :-) --Pugilist (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The deformation does not work for me, and the annotated technical flaws are disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I have mixed feelings about opposing a feature, but I have to concede that I am not wowed by this photo. I like a lot of compositions with complicated forms, but this one doesn't give me as much pleasure to look at as some others do. I'm not sure why that is, but the composition isn't really speaking to me. It feels to me like a jumble without obvious order. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice:) --Halavar (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just doesn't work for me. It's too chaotic to have a clear composition, but too ordered to be totally random. And personally I do mind the distortion. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco² 18:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)