Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuching Sarawak Dewan-Undangan-Negeri-Sarawak-01.jpg

File:Kuching Sarawak Dewan-Undangan-Negeri-Sarawak-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 17:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kuching Sarawak Dewan-Undangan-Negeri-Sarawak-01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuching Sarawak Dewan-Undangan-Negeri-Sarawak-01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info The Sarawak State Legislative Assembly building (Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak) is the seat of en:Sarawak State Legislative Assembly, a part of the Legislature of Sarawak, Malaysia (the other being the Governor of Sarawak).

All by me -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - Picturesque, but I'd like to see a less dull sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Somehow the cloudy sky works for me in this picture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Can anything be done about the blue/yellow moiré on the nets on the river bank below the center of the building? --cart-Talk 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it. Thanks for the hint. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --fedaro (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Support because of overexposure on the roof. Could you correct that? Yann (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I carefully looked into that. Due to the curved metal roof, you cannot totally avoid reflections. This reflection fortunately isn't blown out but just very bright. However, it cannot be handled with local reduction of exposure or reduction of whites/highlights. It would entail an area substitution in PS to achieve a suitable result. Personally, I do not think, that it is worth to remove the bright part of the roof in favor for a photoshopped matte. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the dull light, but I'd love to see this in different light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Moderate support While I, too, would like to see the building in stronger light, it is interesting enough by itself to make this featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support And the roof is fine -- metal reflects the sun and such specular highlights should be allowed to "over expose" as in reality they are many times brighter than can be captured or realised on the screen. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--fedaro (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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