Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG

File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 20:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG

7

2056

863

683

2008

3000

Falls es unklar ist, diese Bereiche sind gemeint, auch ist es im Histogramm erkennbar.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Felix König ✉ 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition, timing, and quality. --A.Savin 11:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral some  Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose as The Photographer. But change to oppose. The problems are not really big, but obvious. I´m looking at this picture with an calibrated monitor. --Hubertl (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose clearly underexposed, and not very atmospheric for me, the tower base is cut, this is not optimal --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• "clearly underexposed" -- Felix König ✉ 20:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• +1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The histogram of this image disproves its claimed underexposure. --A.Savin 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The objects are blackly and the light conditions aren't ideal. I look pictures with my eyes and not with a histogramm. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Wladyslaw. The dark areas don't look totally lost so you can probably do some shadow recovery. The picture could also use an global brightening (while still keeping the whites from blowing out). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is already a derivate work that was brightend but the author declines this version because this image doesn't reflect the light conditions. Sadly he forgets that every camera doesn't render natural conditions to 100%. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)