Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpg

File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 09:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by High Contrast- nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Simple, clean, great atmosphere and colors, majesty, rare. Featurable IMO. -- Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, clean and simple, great qualities in a photograph, however, the image lacks two key attributes: volume and texture. Those two elements would have given it added value in terms of aesthetics and architecture. Picture was taken at the wrong time of day. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I find here enough volume and texture.--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as texture, of course there is, just not enough given the possibilities. Volume? Come on Jebulon, lighting is flat! If the picture had been taken from the right corner, the story would have been different, for give the direction of light one wall would have been in the shadow, the other in the lightm hence giving it incredible volume! and the texture would have been enhanced tremendously! And I correct myself, wrong angle, right time of day. The way it is now the photograph was taken almost from the same direction of the sunlight, texture and volume have to do with direction of light, and in this case the choice, given the conditions and possibilities, the best angle was not chosen. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
      • ...in your opinion. This was the best angle to avoid disturbing shadows on the ground, and I think it is good in this case. In my opinion...--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, my opinion is based on well established photographic practice and technique. What I say is hardly revolutionary, on the contrary, it is very conservative photographic practice. If you take the time to read a little about direction of light and how directional lighting affects volume and texture and how it brings three dimensionality to a two dimensional surface, you would not have any other option but to agree not just with me, but with just about any well informed photographer. This particular photograph is a clasic example of what should not be done, any way you want to put it. Look at the round columns on the left wall, it it were not for the contour and perspective, you could hardly tell that they round. If the photographed had placed himself on the other corner, he would not have disturbing shadows, but shadows that would have given the image volume and texture, making the image much more pleasant. You can read a little bit about light direction, shadows and texture here [[1]], here [[2]], here [[3]] and here [[4]]. Finally, this is a good example of backlight and texture [[5]] This is really so elementary that this argument is foolish. Almost like arguing the wetness of water. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • This is another example of direction of light and photographic texture. Given a good exposure and subject and lighting within the dynamic range, shadows and highlights will come out nicely. [[6]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Please have a look on your talk page. --Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The light is rather soft, but that's a quality here, as the light in the desert is mostly too harsh. -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Yes, it is an impressive building and composition. But the lighting is dull and the image quality is poor, as if some agressive softening process were applied. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good work! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 17:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael F. Schönitzer 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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