Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tennis club cienfuegos.jpg

File:Tennis club cienfuegos.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 14:55:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tennis club cienfuegos.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tennis club cienfuegos.jpg

•  Info created by Nino Verde - uploaded by Nino Verde - nominated by Nino Verde --Nino Verde (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've received here and in some other places comments about excessive posprocessing and surrealistic view. Here posprocessing really exists, but is not so much as you mention it. To prove it i gave you link to plain JPEG (conversion+resize only) and also link to RAW+XMP (sorry but xmp is made by Photoshop CC). This is shot in such way. Probably overexposing is present on the white building, but it has no visible texture, thus it is neglible. --Nino Verde (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Question "Transplanted" sky? Looks surrealistic. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  Nope. I can show you raw file with this image. --Nino Verde (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  No need, I believe you. It is excellent composition, but shades are pretty strange anyway, and for some reason I can't feel the depth of the picture. --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  The PP has created such flat lighting it has lost all depth. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  It is not PP. Check my notes, i've added at Info. --Nino Verde (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  It's a beautiful building and a fine composition but it also has the look of very aggressive shadow/highlight application. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose horrible IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment The plain JPEG doesn't have the depth issue and is not oversaturated. IMO, the unnatural oversaturation of the sky and the foreground vegetation is the main problem, and they are not present in the plain JPEG version. A secondary issue is that the clouds look like they have suffered from something like Clarity (LR term, I don't know what it's called in PS) so that they have dark halos around them. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I like it the way it is. I personally do not see the sky issue raised by Julian. The only thing which slightly distracts is the relatively old car in front of the building (a different car had been better). But all in all the composition is very good most notably the diagonal leading lines, the intergration of trees and bushes with a nice green tone, the street lamp at the right front and,... There had been much worse examples regarding saturation which got more support. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That image you linked failed to be promoted: Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment The building is taken in two-point perspective but the road looks one-point perspective. I think they don't get good feeling from this kind of composition mostly (imo).--Laitche (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support It looks unnatural, but it isn't : sometimes such a lightning happens, imho. And the composition is OK. -- Trace (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Trace. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Whites are overexposed unfortunately. Also, the colors look strange. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Support —Mono 21:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King of Hearts. Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Over processed in the management of light colors and dark tones. I agree with :Tuxyso we've seen worse, but this is not a reason to continue :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)