Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salzspeicher Magazzini del Sale Lubecca Land Schleswig-Holstein.jpg

File:Salzspeicher Magazzini del Sale Lubecca Land Schleswig-Holstein.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2022 at 21:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Salzspeicher Magazzini del Sale Lubecca Land Schleswig-Holstein.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salzspeicher Magazzini del Sale Lubecca Land Schleswig-Holstein.jpg

3368

2388

2089

218

5629

4994

Inspect the grass in this area and you will see that there are cutting lines and impossible reflections.

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded by Maurizio Moro5153 - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Impressive but the noise is too strong IMO.--Ermell (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dear IamMM, I am very sorry to spoil one of your nominations, but this photo has got a big problem. When we discussed this photo for WLM Germany, we noticed that this is very probably a montage – the lower (mirrored) image is not a real reflection, but it is fake. You can see this (a) when you compare the mirrored image pixel by pixel with the upper one – they are too similar, namely identical pixel by pixel; (b) when you inspect the small stripe of grass in the centre – in the right part there are some areas where there are cutting lines and reflections on the grass (!), please see my note on the nomination page. From (a) and (b) we did conclude that this photo is fake, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's right, according to the Exif it's a version of this image with the reflection attached. It is strange that denoising was not applied despite the digital manipulation. -- IamMM (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ah, very good, so you have also found the original source. Sorry again, --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Regretfully oppose I was going to support this for image quality until I read Aristeas' comment. No way are we ever featuring a meticulously-doctored reflection. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination -- IamMM (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment It is stated in the caption that the reflection is fake, so this was a valid nom. Just we need to vote for what it is (an image manipulation) - Benh (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Right, but that hint has been added only recently by Yann (thank you very much!) [1]; the original uploader did not mention that the reflection is fake. --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  you are right, sorry (I thought I checked the history of the page). Anyhow, still thinking this should have been given same chance as other noms. I don't see any deception attempt here. - Benh (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Now I see what you mean, Benh, and agree. Well, should we re-nominate this photo to vote on it again, this time mentioning immediately that it is a montage? --Aristeas (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  • It's @IamMM's nom, so maybe he should decide. But yes, next time such a nom comes in, I think it could be best to specify it's a montage :) - Benh (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I have lost interest in this nom, if you wish you can try your luck. I believe that FPC in terms of reflections should rely on the naturalness of the scene, a manipulated reflection is less tolerable than a manipulated background. I also like the composition of the original image and I think it could have a chance, but noise is still a problem. -- IamMM (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment My thoughts on this nomination are that there is nothing wrong with a photo with a faked reflection being uploaded to the project, because it's artistic and there should be room for such things, but i wouldn't really want to see a photo like this become FP when we have so many beautiful reflections that are 100% real. In any case I would oppose because I think this is a bit too noisy to be one of our best Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)