Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 06:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The image size is already strongly reduced from the original stitching. 36 megapixel with a low compression rate is appropriate IMO and 25 MB not as big in this relation. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More than half of the castle (and of the hill) is in unfortunate shadow. Wrong shooting time. Light is imho more important than resolution. Nochmal auf Deutsch: Mehr als die Hälfte der Burg (und des Hügels) befindet sich in unschönem Schatten. Falsche Aufnahmezeit. Das Licht ist aus meiner Sicht deutlich wichtiger als eine hohe Auflösung. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution is not main point but light has not necessary and every time to be from back. This is a popular but also wrong proposition. Nothig has hard shadow, everythink is visible well. Rather this light let the hill and castle be more three-dimensional. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surpise - someone who has a differing opinion from your's is surely wrong - so far, so predictable. To the photo: Nearly the complete right side of the builing is in shadow, some bottom parts of the building are also in shadow - no complex math is necessary to calculate that to more than half of the building. I agree with you that shadows can help to bring out the plasticity of a building and are a widespread stylistic device in architecture photography. But this shadow style only works well for me if the shadow parts are remarkable smaller than the light parts of a building and if the front parts of a building are not in shadow. To take plasticity again and again as argument for a photo at unfortunate light is imho no valid argument.Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Überraschung, Überraschung - jemand hat eine andere Meinung als du und liegt natürlich falsch - so weit so vorhersagbar. Zu dem Foto: Nahezu der komplette rechte Teil des Gebäudes befindet sich im Schatten, einige Teile am Fuße des rechten Gebäudesteils ebenso. Man braucht keine höhere Mathematik um dies zu mehr als die Hälfe zu addieren. Ich stimme dir zu, dass Schatten helfen können, die Plastizität eines Gebäudes hervorzuheben - ein weit verbreitetes Stilmittel in der Architekturfotografie. Für mich funktioniert dieses aber nur sinnvoll, wenn die Schattenteile deutlich kleiner sind als die Gebäudeteile, die im Licht sind. Ebenso ist es nicht schön, wenn die Vorderseiten von Gebäuden im Schatten liegen. Dies ist offensichtlich der Fall hier. Auch wenn du Plastizität immer wieder als Grund dieser Schattenfotos anführst, macht dies keinesfalls ein Foto bei ungünstigem Licht besser.--Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxy: Neither the hill nor the castle are more than 50 % in hard shadow. If you don't belive just look at the image. It's always the same old story. Apart from that I have argued why it's a better choice to have this light conditions. (For me you don't need to translate in German.) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a very good photo, I think. I agree with you Wladyslaw regarding the lightning, it comes in from the side, giving rise to nice texture and rather pleasant light. I noticed at least one of the areas Lauro has pointed out in the foreground as being optimizable by perhaps adjusting the position of a seam in the stitch away from foreground vegetation. With that fixed I will support. The scaffolding and the cranes in the background to the left are a bit distracting, but unavoidable and not overly distracting IMO.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, thank you, is a magnificent panoramic. I agree with you, are details, I appreciate the attention and I particularly thought are an improvement, thanks again. : ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose With regret. There is much to like. The lighting on the left hand side, and over the grassy hill is excellent; on the right is shadow as pointed out but it seems from Googling other photos that this is unavoidable -- you can't have excellent lighting all over a building that curves round. The time of year and weather is good for colour. The resolution is excellent (though I suspect the third car, the black one, has lost its front in stitching error -- this isn't very obvious, though). But the far left of the building is covered in scaffolding. This is where the best light is, and where the leading lines from both left and right take the eye. It isn't noticeable in thumbnail but very distracting full screen. If you are able to return, the viewpoint in this photo looks very good, where the castle is placed in its surrounding scenery. -- Colin (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The (downsized) original file of the stitching
For your preferred viewpoint I was to late on this day and it has the disadvantage that the castle will be also covered in scaffolding, now at the right side and much more then in my picture the left side. I has to admit that this view is very nice but it is definitly a completely other picture and a different intention so it isn't really good to compare. "Your" image is more a landscape image with the castle, my pretension was to show first of all the building itself and not so much the surrounding. For architectual studies too much landscape is distracting.
Black car: I have checked the original files: the car wasn´t disaggregated because of the stitching. The brushwoods are so dense that it is almost coverd. If you look carrefully you'll find the A-pillar of the car gleaming.
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose More than half of the castle (and of the hill) is in unfortunate shadow. Wrong shooting time. Light is imho more important than resolution. Nochmal auf Deutsch: Mehr als die Hälfte der Burg (und des Hügels) befindet sich in unschönem Schatten. Falsche Aufnahmezeit. Das Licht ist aus meiner Sicht deutlich wichtiger als eine hohe Auflösung. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment @Wladyslaw There are some areas that I think should be fixed, I have marked those I found -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
