Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de San Juan de Duero, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 19.jpg

File:Monasterio de San Juan de Duero, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 19.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de San Juan de Duero, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 19.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de San Juan de Duero, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 19.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Remains of the Romanesque Monastery of San Juan de Duero, Soria, Spain. The temple, that belonged to the Knights Hospitaller, was erected in the 12th century and inhabitated until the 18th century. The building has been protected already since 1882 and is a Bien de Interés Cultural (Spanish Heritage Monument). All by me, Poco² 20:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 02:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'd like to see this view in warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment The bottom half has wow but the bleak washed out clouds don't match the rich texture of the stonework. Any chance of fixing that? --cart-Talk 08:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  cart: what you do mean? cropping the sky? applying some changes in the curves (e.g. more contrast)? Sorry, I don't know what you are asking for. I don't live near to this location, so if you ask for a new shot, as Ikan did, you will need patience or a flight ticket :) Poco² 10:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, no re-shoot. :) I know that you are very good at post-processing and the clouds are just very white and feature-less compared to the rest of the photo, so I think it would be nice if you could bring out some more details/texture in them. Maybe add a gradient filter to the sky to reduce the exposure just a little bit or something like that, to bring the sky up to the same level of quality as the rest of the photo. --cart-Talk 10:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  There you go, cart (and FYI, Mile) Poco² 11:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks! Much better. --cart-Talk 11:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sky is overexposured.--Mile (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  Define overexposed Mile. I rather believe that your statement is based on your guts feeling + easy-trigger to oppose my noms. Lr doesn't see any overexposure, that's a fact. --Poco² 10:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• You have some explanation by cart. What you are looking is burnt, 253 of 255 is overexposured. Just washed white, what viewer wouldnt see. And what is guts-feeling ? I like John Wayne, maybe fast-triggered, but what is guts-feeling ? --Mile (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• See Wiktionary:Gut feeling. --cart-Talk 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Now cart was fast-triggered on plus. I will see wiki, lets first solve this picture. Check notations for dust...i even didnt put on all. In clouds also. Put hightlight on minus for some. --Mile (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think so, Mile, opposing because of a dust spot or something like that is IMHO, as I have stated many times, not really a proof of trust to a photographer wo has fixed those kind of things promptly for many years now. Btw, I  removed those spots Poco² 13:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support You see, i think this option is much better than 1st two. Sometime oppose bring well. Instead of talking, put that energy into photoediting. --Mile (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Info One more stuff i would mention. 1st option is 20 MB, second (current) is 10 MB. And i dont see any quality difference. So you could spare some space and also help to open photo in places with slow net. I put on Adobe 11 of 12, or 90%-95% on RawTherapee. There are people on English Wiki, kind of erasers. They are removing big files or pages with too much photos. --Mile (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't upload anything (of one frame) bigger than 12 MB. You can search for an example among my 17,240 files on Commons. The 20MB version of this file was indeed an error (I had exported a pano just before that image and forgot to set the maximum size setting back). Poco² 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice subject, good shot! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support for the composition. :) --Peulle (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- KTC (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think the original file was an exposure error. People interpret "over exposed" in two ways: either so much exposed that it clips and detail is lost, or brighter than they think the scene should look. A blue sky can be pale if there are high clouds and is paler towards the horizon. Having seen the original, one could argue the top of your grad is a little overdarkened, but I probably wouldn't have considered that had I not seen it, or the other photos in the set. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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