Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 35-43 PAN.jpg

File:Vista de Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 35-43 PAN.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 10:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 35-43 PAN.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 35-43 PAN.jpg

10769

3834

253

226

28117

4341

stitching error

4920

3467

225

226

28117

4341

stitching error

8013

3918

225

226

28117

4341

stitching error

25841

3918

1406

366

28119

4341

cloning issues

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Norway
•  Info Panoramic view of Tromsø from Mount Fløya, Norway. Tromsø is the 12th most populous municipality in Norway with a population of 76,974 but the largest urban area in Northern Norway (and the third largest north of the Arctic Circle anywhere in the world (following Murmansk and Norilsk, both located in Russia). Most of Tromsø, including the city centre, is located on the island of Tromsøya, which is connected to the mainland (from where the pictures was taken) by the Tromsø Bridge (in the middle of the image) and the Tromsøysund Tunnel (further to the right). c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Go back (next decade) when the sun's out! Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  A sunny image of Tromsø wouldn't be very representative, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support - Beautiful. If this were a dull gray, that would be something else, but it's not: It's a very active gray. And a formidable achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Not sure, but is the horizon slightly curved? —kallerna (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes it is curved. Straightening it might cut the shore at the bottom. (no it shouldn't cut it) - Benh (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan, the greyness contributes to the mood rather than being dull. A very high-resolution panorama with lots of detail. Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks like the bridge is falling over (cw tilt). --Ivar (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose I used to live here, actually, so this takes me back. But these weather conditions don't really wow me, I fear. The light is not as good as it could be. I know; I have been up there on Fløyen on sunny days. It's marvellous, because you can see for miles and miles, mountains and fjords ... Pity you missed that.--Peulle (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose When I've been up there, I couldn't see a thing through thick clouds. This is better but doesn't wow me. It's also tilted and there are stitching errors - this should be checked in advance. Perhaps nominating for QI first would sort it and save some time to FPC reviewrs. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Benh, Ivar: I've addressed the bend and the perspective issues (I believe) but couldn't see any stitching issues, Podzemnik, if you have see any, would you mind please adding a note? thank you Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Found it. See the road at the bottom.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Peulle and Ivar and fixed all of them. Regarding the cloning issues, not sure what you mean Ivar, there has been no cloning, --Poco a poco (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Poco, I'm fairly sure the horizon is still broken, and to some quite an extent. What stitch soft do you use as a curiosity? Do you level your tripod head before shooting? Don't take it wrong, but you seem to struggle a lot to get these horizons right. There are a few FP which should need a review because that's the kind of error which should be a no go IMO. - Benh (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Benh: that there are issues with the horizon in my images is a fact, I see and accept that criticism, especially if the way I get it is the way you did . I took this image handheld, probably that was not a good idea. I used Photoshop Lr and just tried this image also with PTGui Pro but I didn't find the result very different, to be honest. I just gave it a new try and balanced the horizon and also improved the perspective in the middle right. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I (quickly) looked closely and the verticals look fine, so I'm not getting why I feel the left part is higher than the right. Maybe it's me, or this comes from inconsistencies in the sources. But handheld here should have been fine (no parallax error risks for me) - Benh (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support given that the stitching errors (see notes) are fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  They are  fixed now, Aristeas, thank you Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  (Sorry if my wording was misleading: The image notes were added by Iifar and Peulle, I just mentioned them.) Thank you for fixing! --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  No worries, I got you right at the first time, Aristeas. Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not really as sharp anywhere as similar cityscape panoramas that have made FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination well, thank you all, Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)