Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpg

File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 00:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Elio Pallard - uploaded by Elio Pallard - nominated by Rillke -- Rillke^(q?) 00:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rillke^(q?) 00:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Looks like an X-Men location. INeverCry 02:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- It's extremely washed out, basically has no details; even resizing won't help (unless one goes to stamp size). It's a real shame as the image itself is truly spectacular. KennyOMG (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support very impressive, also the technical work is very good. --Hubertl 07:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, what a monastery - looks like the one in Eco's The name of the Rose. The picture is washed out due to mist --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per Uoaei1. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as per KennyOMG. The "washed out" effect has nothing to do with mist IMO, but with too strong denoising...--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good work --Rjcastillo (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree the picture deserves a more accurate and careful post-process as denoising has clearly eaten some details away. --Ximonic (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's really to the point to argue about to what extent the background is unsharp due to mist or denoising when there's this much mist against a snowy background. For me, it looks enough like a great establishing shot in a movie to !vote for. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition, sharpness is acceptable (given the mist). --C messier (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others, significant posterization everywhere in the mist (would be avoidable with noise). — Julian H.^✈ 14:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others: the processing is not well done, with a strange colour cast to the mist in places, and posterisation, makes me suspect this has been pushed quite far. Also, no embedded colourspace profile or tag in the JPG. -- Colin (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others, great photo but needs re-processing. --Laitche (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent mood. Given the resolution, the minor quality issues don't matter that much to me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support — TintoMeches, 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per King of Hearts. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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