Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suha pri Škofji Loki - Cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika(EŠD710).jpg

File:Suha pri Škofji Loki - Cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika(EŠD710).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2023 at 14:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Suha pri Škofji Loki - Cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika(EŠD710).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suha pri Škofji Loki - Cerkev sv. Janeza Krstnika(EŠD710).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Luka Škerjanec - uploaded by Luka Škerjanec - nominated by Yerpo -- — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Pretty, but there is too much noise in some areas Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment 7th place in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2022 finale. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Question Noisy everywhere. Do these drones have to use very high shutter speeds? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Most consumer drones don't offer precise camera settings, AFAIK. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nice view but overprocessed. The combination Highlights -100 % + Shadows 100% in the post-treatment give together an artificial appearance -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment … and the Dehaze: +30 value which has also contributed to the perceptible noise level; such high values can sometimes be useful locally, but applying them to the whole picture is risky. Overall I am astonished that the photo still looks rather realistic. It’s still a pretty picture, and I would love to see it with a more gentle processing. --Aristeas (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)