Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 06:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg

137

775

3500

3591

3648

5472

I’d prefer a crop like this, maybe even smaller. --Kreuzschnabel 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
•  Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I like everything about the image except for the leaves and other things in the water, but that can't really be helped. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose What I don’t like in the first place is the overexposed cut-off building to the right. Then, it’s the framing. Obviously the photographer was in for the reflection but that don’t really work here, it’s a bit too cluttered overall, and so the portrait orientation looks odd. I’d much prefer a square crop as suggested on the nomination page, and with the camera shifted a bit to the left, the building on the right could be entirely outside the frame. That would give a very much clearer composition. As it is, it’s a bit arbitrary with the cut-off houses on both sides. Besides, it would eliminate "the leaves and other things in the water". --Kreuzschnabel 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral The alternative composition suggested by Kreuz would be excellent and I would suggest (if you, Gzen92, can visit beautiful Colmar again) to try it. But IMHO this does not mean that the composition of the present photo is bad; it is a nice vanishing-point view; I would just crop a little (!) bit at the top and bottom. However the overexposed façades are IMHO a problem. Most digital cameras which I know tend to overexpose the highlights in such a situation (the manufacturers seem to adhere to some outdated ideas about “getting the midtones right”); often it is necessary to underexpose such a scene a bit (maybe by 2/3 steps) in order to preserve the highlights, and then to make the photo brighter again (preserving the highlights) in post-processing. Of course this approach can be difficult with JPEG images, it works better when you take photos in the raw image format. Another problem is the white balance; this could be improved a bit in post, too, especially when working with a raw image file, but it may be even better to take such photos in another season – midday light in June makes such photos often a bit unappealing, the sun is just too high (which results in overexposed bright areas and black shadows) and the light too cold. No offence, just some remarks which I hope to be helpful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment I think I'd support the crop ... as it is I find the debris floating in the water at the foreground to be somewhat off-putting, and the crop gets rid of most of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thoughtful composition but doesn't really work for me. It feels tense in the middle and nothing much is happening in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful photo but the light feels a little pale and washed-out for me, and I'm not 100% convinced by the composition per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)