Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg

File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 21:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
•  Info 300 megapixel stitching of Hochzeitsturm, part of UNESCO World Heritage Site Mathildenhöhe at Darmstadt, Germany. Please notice that the picture maybe cannot be displayed regularly in the browser due to the high resolution. However, the image can be downloaded or viewed in the ZoomViewer. There is also a reduced version with only 100 megapixels, which can be viewed in the browser as usual. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Apart from the blurred amd messy immediate foreground, looks very high quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I thought about cutting away the foreground, but I think it looks better with the foreground. I don't like the picture having no foreground. The blur is a result of the focal length of 135mm. I don't think that's a problem because there's nothing exciting to see in front anyway and it gives the picture some depth. -- Wolf im Wald 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Support though I do think f/8 would have been a better choice. For ultra-high-resolution images, I don't expect everything to be in perfect focus, but everything should be sharp at a moderate resolution like 6 MP. The sharpness of the foreground is passable, but there's just a little bit more fuzziness than I'd like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I used f/5.6 because the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Milvus performs with more sharpness at this setting (compared to f/8). I always try to achieve the best possible technical result and in this case it was more important to me that the sundial in the right center of the picture is very sharp. The uninteresting and ugly foreground was not important to me, I even think it's good that it loses importance due to the blurring. -- Wolf im Wald 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent quality and resolution -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose The technology used gives us excellent sharpness and resolution, but shouldn't have been bought for the price of a blurred foreground. The unsharpness doesn't really helps for depth here in my eyes. Yes, without foregeund is not a better solution. f/5.6 doesn't seem to be the right choice for 135 mm and this subject either. In broad daylight, a high f-number shouldn't have been a problem. If the goal is a lower resolution, the photographer could have made it easier for himself instead of composing 28 individual images. By the way: The photographer can't do anything about the scaffolding, but it wasn't the ideal time for an excellent image of this tower. --Milseburg (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak support Personally I am fine with the foreground etc. being out of focus – the subject is the tower, period. (“Photography consists of sharpness and unsharpness”, my father used to tell me; one can read more about this idea e.g. in Feininger’s photography textbooks.) And I understand the choice of f/5.6; modern lenses, combined with modern high-resolution sensors, often excel in sharpness already at f/4 and show diffraction starting already at f/8, even more at f/11. So if the photographer wanted to make the most of the tower, he has done well. It’s just a pity about all the ugly stuff (scaffolding etc.) around which really degrades the overall impression, sorry; while all the foreground and background can very well be out of focus, they are still parts of the composition and therefore influence the overall impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice quality, but the fences in the foreground are really hugly. I would support with a crop. Yann (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support –SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Fences in the bottom are really problematic, but overall I think this is FP material. -- Pofka (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Yann. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Yann. -- Karelj (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose The amount of detail is great, but the overall composition/rest of the scene doesn't work for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)