Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fokker Dr.I D-EFTJ OTT 2013 02.jpg

File:Fokker Dr.I D-EFTJ OTT 2013 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 04:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fokker Dr.I D-EFTJ OTT 2013 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fokker Dr.I D-EFTJ OTT 2013 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
•  Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Would be even more spectacular after turning around. --Ermell (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pretty good quality but not enough for an FP in my book. The resolution is fairly low, the highlights are bright and the angle does little to give me any sense of "wow".--Peulle (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose it seems overexposed, specially the sky may be burnt 22:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezarate (talk • contribs)
•  Oppose per others. I don't love the glare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Info I'd like to think that I have learned something in terms of photo editing since then, so I gave it an update. I'd like to hear what your opinion is on that. @Ezarate: The exposure is increased by about a stop, so the sky is definitely not burnt, just not very interesting. Pinging Thennicke as well. — Julian H.^✈ 06:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose to  Neutral For others --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Shame about the glare because done right, I think this could have been really striking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case: What exactly are you referring with "glare"? I undestand this as some artifact which reduces the contrast due to backlighting, but I can't see that here. — Julian H.^✈ 05:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Julian Herzog: The light reflecting off the wings and body. Ikan called it that as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case: Ah, thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering because that seems like a regular reflection to me. — Julian H.^✈ 19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment It is a pity that the image is too bright. Otherwise it were very good and „wow“ for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Ok, I gave it one last significant processing overhaul and reduced the glare and overall brightness further. CC: Thennicke, Martin Falbisoner, Ermell, Peulle, Ikan Kekek, Ezarate, LivioAndronico, Lothar Spurzem and Daniel Case. — Julian H.^✈ 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - It's much improved to my eyes. I'm still not sure about supporting (so far, I'm not feeling wowed), but I crossed out my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Julian Herzog: In all honesty, what I loved about this image was its original processing, with that strong sense of reflection, and the associated contrast (I think you do an amazing job with your postprocessing). It seems other reviewers aren't so fond of that though, so it might be better for me to just end the nomination - though you've put a lot of work into this. What do you think? -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  By the way, I think it is disappointing that people are in opposition to an image because of reflected light; something that is perfectly natural and in my opinion also beautiful. It's just shiny paint, and nothing was overexposed. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  You may have noticed that I didn't support this one yet, as I'm not entirely convinced that the quality deserves FP status. So I'm ok with giving up on it. At this point, it really is unlikely to succeed. I also don't mind putting some work into an old photo if it makes it better, and to support a nomination that I appreciate. — Julian H.^✈ 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• No problem; in that case I will end the nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)