Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuffner-Sternwarte-Heliometertrakt 1008.jpg

File:Kuffner-Sternwarte-Heliometertrakt 1008.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2015 at 21:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kuffner-Sternwarte-Heliometertrakt 1008.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuffner-Sternwarte-Heliometertrakt 1008.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info all by Hubertl --Hubertl 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Info The historical Kuffner observatory, Vienna, heliometer dome.
•  Support -- Hubertl 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Because of lightweight star spun. Or too much, or not enough for my taste. Pity because for an observatory at night makes a great photo. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very little noise and WB seems quite accurate. I don't see the star trails as an issue. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dim to work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

   Comment What do you mean, Daniel Case, should I lighten it up by Lightroom-turbo? This dome is not enlightened normally, because astronoms don´t like this "wrong" light so much, in fact, they hat it. In this case it was at the beginning, when the light started slowly. I captured exactly the scene, we had on this evening, 30s and 100 ISO. Therefore I nominated it. In fact, it is brighter than in real, and honestly, I used a torch light to enhance it a bit. --Hubertl 20:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You can photograph it however you want. I'm just saying that it doesn't work for me, not that you should fix it to please me (there are already more supports than my one oppose). If other people like it more than me, fine, and it might get to FP that way ... it's not my place to stand in the way. But it was a little hard, when looking at it, to figure out what it was supposed to a picture of, and if I have to say that, then I'm not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, sounds fair.--Hubertl 00:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Case. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC
•  Support Interesting subject and atmosphere. Maybe a little bit small. Did you downsample it or where have all the pixels gone? --Code (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

   Comment it´s a crop, I made it with the 11-24mm f/4 L-lens. I didn´t know really what I have got, I realized it at home. --Hubertl 07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Underexposed, rather small and it's not outstanding for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

   Comment No, it is not underexposed. It´s just dark. Because there was really no light but a small torch lamp. We, Ailura and me, we had a lot of fun, painting the tower and experimenting with this situation. By using my big calibrated monitors, it´s ok, probably not with a notebook-screen. But anyway, thanks for your review, Iifar --Hubertl 07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Neutral Yes, a little underexposed, it seems. It at least seems so... --Tremonist (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Marvellous. Don`t you see that all lights are off? (It is an observatory, so it must be dark.) --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support a very good night shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed. The actual brightness is irrelevant for correct exposure. — Julian H.^✈ 11:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Question at all opposes: "why is this night shoot underexposed?" This is a nonsense argument for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why am I supposed to treat a night shot differntly regarding exposure? It's a digital file, it doesn't contain information about the absolute display brightness. This means that it should use the full dynamic range that the colour profile allows. Here, the main subject is very dark. Please explain why this is nonsense. — Julian H.^✈ 11:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I´m afraid, you don´t know, what you are talking about, Julian. It´s dark, therefore it is underexposed? This is just bullshit! Of course, I can do it different, blaming everyone by raising the colors. But I want to demonstrate, how people can see this tower in real. It´s fact, this world have different lightening conditions. I don´t want to simulate a kind of standard light. --Hubertl 21:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 Support Ggia (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Case --Claus 04:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)