Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017.jpg

File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2017 at 06:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
•  Info You can see the Zecca, Biblioteca Marciana, Saint Mark's Campanile, Palazzo Ducale, and Prigioni Nuove, Venice. I took this image onboard a vaporetto. What I especially like about it is the pleasant lighting. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Gorgeous. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Yes, really pretty. Great reflections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe you just could clone each tourist out ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• If he did that, it would no longer be a "tourist picture". :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry to spoil. But I don't see what is special about that one. The buildings are skewed (backward on the left side), the noon lighting is harsh, it's full of tourists and full size quality is soso to say the least. - Benh (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, Benh, for your remarks. Well, the lighting is a matter of taste I guess - I don't find it particularly harsh. The masses of tourists can't be helped in Venice. Never. Unfortunately. So we better regard them as a feature. ;-) More seriously, I don't think that the buildings are skewed... It's not that St. Mark's Square would follow a truly perpendicular pattern. Plus: All facades there are to some degree slanting. They're (truly) old and their base is not exactly made of concrete blocks. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah sorry but I don't agree with the tourist argument... because I went there and took many tourist-free pictures (and not all of them are public on my Flickr stream). It's only a matter of getting up a little bit earlier. As a side benefit, you get a softer better lighting IMO (but yes one could argue this is a matter of tastes). As for the skewing, I still believe it's there. In my view, you should have pointed ur camera slightly to the right. But this is easy fix. - Benh (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose EDIT: alternative version is better. -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral The lighting is actually not bad, surprisingly, for a midday shot. I think it's because there are no significant shadows on the facades which can ruin the photo. However, I don't think a relatively easy-to-take shot with 12 MP which isn't tack-sharp can quite be considered the best of what we have to offer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Benh, better light, less tourists - wake up more early. --Mile (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Guys, do you honestly believe I'm not aware of the benefits that early morning light offers to the eager photographer?! In fact I started roaming this beautiful city as soon as my ship finally finished mooring. Weather wasn't the best during most of the day. Luckily some minor clouds helped create pleasant midday lighting when the haze finally started to disappear. I was lucky to find myself on a vaporetto passing St. Mark's Square when this scene presented itself to me - and took a couple of pictures while standing in the open section of a quickly und rather rockingly moving boat. I took hundreds of pictures that day - and later discarded most of them. I still believe that this nom does in fact contribute to our collection of better images of Venice. Astonishingly there aren't that many FPs from this picturesque place yet (Wolfgang's and Ben's photos, e.g., are awesome of course!). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Benh, although the tourists don't bother me as they are inevitable. However, this just doesn't distinguish itself from many other pictures of this scene (the cropped building doesn't help). Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. But I really like the light! -- Thennicke (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support for my this version also is ok --Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Benh. --Karelj (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• I now  Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info cropped as requested above - I've removed the Prigioni Nuove. This also improves the general composition, imo, as it positions the campanile exactly according to the rule of thirds. Pinging (let's hope I don't forget anybody) Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, cart-Talk, Cayambe, Jebulon, George Chernilevsky ^talk, Benh, Pofka (talk), King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Mile, Palauenc05, Daniel Case, fedaro, Peulle, Thennicke.
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Saw it, and still, i miss tonality, better colors, morning or late evening ones. --Mile (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I prefer this version. The crop on the right improves the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ok too. --cart-Talk 08:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Still  Neutral - I think's it's been oversharpened at too high a radius to overcompensate for the slight lack of natural sharpness. I probably wouldn't be this picky on a typical FP nom, but if I've seen a composition before from multiple photographers, I'd demand either greater artistic value (clouds, lighting, etc.) or more megapixels. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow's there and EV's there --A.Savin 15:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Both.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Both. --B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This version is clearly better. -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017 -2.jpg