Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salle couverte de grandes dalles situées au Sud u monastère.jpg

File:Salle couverte de grandes dalles situées au Sud u monastère.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2018 at 08:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Salle couverte de grandes dalles situées au Sud u monastère.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salle couverte de grandes dalles situées au Sud u monastère.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places All by me -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Downsized and too dark.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment dear Peulle (talk) what does it mean downsized so that I can fix it with the darkness issue ? --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi there - the darkness may be possible to fix with simple brightening. By "downsized" I mean that this image is only 3,872 × 2,581 pixels, and the camera used has the potential to shoot 6016 × 4000 pixels. Please see the Guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." Certainly, for FPs, we require as high a resolution as possible, unless the image has many redeeming features (big wow factor).--Peulle (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• dear Peulle (talk) thank you for the piece of advice: in deed I did not know about that and I always export file after editing with a file sized at 10 Mpix I chnged the setting so tha I can have a better file ... I improved the lightening too --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support The rules state a minimum size and the image is within the criteria, regarless of downsizing. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Tomascastelazo: You have misunderstood. The guideline is that images should not be downsized. The 2MP limit is an absolute minimum, but you still can't downsize images to just above that limit and expect them to be promoted.--Peulle (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Still dark in my view and like this one the colors are veiled -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Again, a very good composition, but I feel like there's no way it was that dark at 10:55, even on a mostly cloudy day in February, and the sharpness could be better. You have some great ideas, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Light OK for me. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others; it looks like it was shot through an ND filter. Also, it's still not completely sharp anywhere, which I can't fathom given the aperture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • • Hello everybody and thank you for your Humble Opinions : I did not use any filter and the sun was covered by clouds and even I like it that way but I added more Sharpness and more light ... have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Color is better but sharpness is not. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - If the light really was like that, I simply don't love the photo for having dull light, and as I said, it's not sharp enough for FP, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you everybody ... but I like it :) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's ok if you like it that way. Just to see how it would look, I did some basic corrections of the light and added a bit of sharpness. You can see the edited version here: File:Salle couverte de grandes dalles situées au Sud u monastère - 2.jpg. I think that would have a bigger chance of making FP if you added it as an "Alt", but that is up to you. :) --Cart (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • dear Cart (talk) thank you for the hints I reverted it twice and compared it twice tour file to rech the same result : I hope that you enjoy the result and that I improved my edting skills --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• You must 'ping' all the voters now that you have changed the photo. All the best, --Cart (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support - Still a bit soft in places but solid, overall, and as I said, I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Now it's far too clear, like washed out 3 times in the washing machine :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment dear Basile Morin (talk) I reduced the washing times twice ~:-) have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• dear Ikan Kekek (talk) I think it is sharper now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• dear Peulle (talk) have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• dear Daniel Case (talk) there was no filter have a look again please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps the best you could get now with the light, but still not natural enough in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)