Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg

File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 14:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg

•  Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I liked it and added to Kurhaus, Wiesbaden earlier; but the low resolution forces me to refrain from supporting here. Jee 03:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support now; thanks Martin. Jee 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I think though that increasing the contrast in the top part would help Poco² 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nikhil (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really nice picture! But for me there are some issues to make me oppose. The overall quality could be higher imo. For a shot like this i expect a little higher resulution, better light and, I know thats nitpicking, the other fotographer is really disturbing in my eyes and I think this would be avoidable . Sorry... --mathias K 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Leviathan1983: Ok about the other photographer (I was thinking about retouching myself, but others convinced me, to leave him there) and the optical aberration(it's „just“ a 500€-Lens), but I don't understand why you suggest a „better light“? This interiour shot was done with the available artificial light and reflects the exact situation on location. I neither see the possibility nor the necessity for a different lighting?!

  One comment on the resolution complaints: Our guidelines define a minimum of 2Mpx. This photo has more than double of that: 5.5Mpx. Who ever consideres this not to be sufficient, should attempt to change the guidelines, instead of giving contras to single photos. --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We are used to Diliff's fantastic stitched photographs but this appears to be a single frame from a 10MP camera and is approx 75% width, which is not a large reduction. If the subject were less spectacular, or the framing less precise, the lower resolution would count against it for me. Martin, the 2MP limit is the absolute floor of acceptability (to be breached only if really justified). There is nothing stopping reviewers citing insufficient resolution/sharpness in their opinion for their oppose as we are judging what is the "finest on Commons", rather that what is acceptable. This happens not infrequently for scanned paintings or for panoramas. The "finest" will naturally creep upwards technically. Btw, can people avoid "small" for review comments. I know the intention is to make the text parenthetical but it has accessibility issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Halavar (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Well captured ornate interior. I would support an alternative with the photographer skillfully cloned out -- just use the retouched template -- I see no issues with doing that here. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support It's funny but the other photographer is one the detail I like so much about this picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 02:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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