Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg

File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 07:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
•  Info Ishiyama-dera, literally Stony Mountain Temple, Ōtsu, Shiga Prefecture, Japan, at night. In this case I like the rather "dense" composition as it hints at all the little architectural and artistic features one can find at this site on the outskirts of Kyoto. The pagoda is not overexposed, by the way, though the illumination lets its white segments glare - which is rather impressive when seen in situ. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Really striking; I'll take it. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• shizhao, when you oppose a feature, you need to say why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And this guy [1] is a administrator here people! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to say something I haven't seen anyone say: Welcome to Featured Picture Candidates, shizhao! Just because Shizhao is an administrator doesn't mean s/he is familiar with FPC procedures. There are many other tasks an administrator could perform ably. I think we should stand ready to help Shizhao, if asked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• As an Admin, Shizhao should respond as quickly as possible to Ikan's request "when you oppose a feature, you need to say why". If not, I assume there are steps that can be taken. Charles (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Charles, there is also the matter of time difference to consider if this user is based in China. Shizhao may not be able to respond quickly due to work, school or unreliable internet connection (apparently common in China). Not every Admin can be on call during the 9-5 CET workday. Please be a bit patient on international sites and don't call for "steps to be taken" within less than a 24 hours after the request was made.--cart-Talk 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Composition messy --shizhao (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --cart-Talk 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really dislike the dark structure in the foreground. No chance to use fill-in flash? Charles (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - To me, the dark foreground makes the bright areas seem brighter. It's not what we usually see at FPC, but I like it in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see interesting details here (including the areas in shadow in the front) but the combination of all of them is not harmonious to me. It is just too loaded and my eyes just don't find a path to follow when looking at this picture, sorry. Poco² 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Question Poco², lNeverCry, would a crop like the one suggested on the file page help? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  I am afraid, it wouldn't do it IMHO. Sorry, but I don't see a way out Poco² 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative

Featured picture candidates/File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg

•  Info Alternative as suggested by Charles: structure in the foreground slightly brightened, also pinging Ikan Kekek, shizhao, cart-Talk, LivioAndronico ^(talk) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Milder  Support - I'm OK with this one, too, but I tend to prefer the more dramatic contrast in the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Better, but still much too dark. Charles (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Sort of oppose I think the original works better because it lets you focus on the temple while this adds a new element to the photo, but either of the versions could be promoted. --cart-Talk 11:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition messy --shizhao (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I've added a note about a weird ghost image in the center. Any ideas what this is? If it is not something that belongs there, I would oppose. – Lucas^T 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it is what you've already suspected: a ghost (i.e. a person that is very blurred due to the long exposure) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Interesting texture and lighting, but ultimately too much going on. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per my vote above Poco² 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)