Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Invalidendom - Kuppel.jpg

File:Paris - Invalidendom - Kuppel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Invalidendom - Kuppel.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Invalidendom - Kuppel.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I just love reviewing pics like this... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very sharp and detailed. --Cayambe (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Admittedly I'm being picky here, but I wouldn't have cropped this much on the bottom side. It really feels like missing some kind of "support" here,sSomething like this. But since this wasn't taken from front... - Benh (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Beautyfull subject and nice quality is not enough. Agree with Benh. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed, at the cross at the top, statues and the whole dome.--Snaevar (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The reflections are inevitable when you have sunny weather. But I can not see that the reflections on the gilded areas disturb the impression of the image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• They are to some extent, as long as you take from proper point of view and at the right time (This example from myself doesn't have that many reflections) - Benh (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• It has not that many reflections because the picture is anyway to dark. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• A bit of bad faith here... You are right for the underexposure; but really the point of view is more suitable to avoid reflection. I could work on that and brighten it up, I wouldn't have that large burnt out part. But I think I'll have a reshot at it someday instead, since my lens is now repaired. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Like Benh pointed out this picture should be taken a different time of day, or even when there its more cloudy. Not every picture can be fixed in a computer to make it as an FP, you know.--Snaevar (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Even reducing the picture at 2 LW there are reflections visible. [1] Gold is twinkling. That's life. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support -- A different angle would've caused shadow, therefore IMO the glint, especially that the entire top is gilded yet the glint is only over a fairly small part, is forgiveable.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Not very good but very sharpness.--Claus (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Citron (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC))