Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw-Most Grunwaldzki.jpg

File:Wroclaw-Most Grunwaldzki.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2014 at 23:35:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw-Most Grunwaldzki.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wroclaw-Most Grunwaldzki.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Halavar (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Love the dreamy clouds and lights. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose - I never understood, why HDR so often look like HDR. --Hubertl (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose per Hubertl --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment ok, even if the image is no HDR - it is still (imo) a bit overprocessed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Why do you think this is HDR? This is not HDR! Jar.ciurus (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• What you are talking about! Exposure bracketing. No tone mapping? Read the Exif. I don´t see any problems with HDR, as long it just support and heal the typical problems and don´t cause eye cancer. --Hubertl (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• No tone mapping! No Photomatix and other HDR applications! This is picture from ONE exposition! Jar.ciurus (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you mean. What do the Exif say? Its ok, if you like this grandstandig with your HDRs, but for me its not more as a kind of Kitch --Hubertl (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Exif says "exposure bracketing". So what? I've made three exposures not to create HDR but to choose the best exposure. Look - http://jarekciurus.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/K3JC4516.jpg. This is picture STRAIGHT from RAW file... Highlights -90, shadows +40, exposure +1,40. Jar.ciurus (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Kikos (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very good quality, great composition (look how nice those two towers fits on the right side), beautiful clouds. --CLI (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality, this doesn't look like HDR to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Looks great --Muhammad (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Less sky darkening would be much better, but it's really nice as it is. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose overprocessed, oversaturated, gaussian blur is too much. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jar.ciurus (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strongly per Alchemist-hp.--Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• What do I have to do, when raw RAW file looks like it is 'overprocessed', 'oversaturated'? ;) I've catched great lighting and tried to do the best with these conditions... Make it dull? --Jar.ciurus (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Tomasz Leśniowski 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Simply breathtaking... I take Jar.ciurus' word for it that he happened to catch great lighting. Wonderful. Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Yarl ✉ 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer the picture straight from the raw though. The clouds are a little too dark in your edited version. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ram-Man 17:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Ralf Roleček 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC) too much HDR

• Please refer to previous discussion - this is not HDR image... -- Jar.ciurus 08:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• dont bother, the average reviewer is just too dumb to understand the real need of exposure bracketing and the fact that HDR has no advantage over raw. Just do what you do and hide exif. 193.110.198.7 13:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "the fact that HDR has no advantage over raw" wtf... --DXR (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• In many situations, properly exposed RAW has enough information to extract good quality picture. There is no need to make HDR like in this case. -- Jar.ciurus 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose I do not know what it is. Photo? Picture?--polar123 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I dont' know what it is- constructive criticism or just hate because of no success in WLM 2014? -- Jar.ciurus 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• IF you feel better could be hate, or ...you are master in photoshop.--polar123 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Im. / Fav.} 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges