Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A escuridão e a luz - Santuário Dom Bosco.jpg

File:A escuridão e a luz - Santuário Dom Bosco.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 11:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A escuridão e a luz - Santuário Dom Bosco.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A escuridão e a luz - Santuário Dom Bosco.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created and uploaded by Arturdiasr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This looks magic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Intriguing and pleasant to look at, so I'll  Support, but I ask, not knowing this place, whether perspective correction would be appropriate or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Information for @Ikan Kekek: This picture was taken at Santuário Dom Bosco (Dom Bosco Sanctuary). English description and category added. I don't see any need for perspective correction. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Very nice composition, but minor noise at the top. May be better with ISO 100. --XRay ^talk 06:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but I never saw this colours in this building, this should be a little bit purple:[1], and with more light blues, this picture is oversaturate, and more, this a very poor representation of this stained glass, the most amazing thing about it, is the top, cut off in this picture. -- RTA 09:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• {{s}}I think, it can make a difference of blue appearance, if you capture this windows from this angle. --Hubertl 09:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks, Rodrigo --Hubertl 13:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I didn't heed to some details, >>>> see this (forget the green) and see the exif it's clear that the author underexposured badly and on purpose, 1/400 ISO 400, the photo have the top that is important to this photo, but the author decided to removed it, this a bad representation, and knowing that this walls are white, we can see that this is oversaturate photo. Nothing educational here... -- RTA 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe the underexposition was done to reduce the overexposition in the glass. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ArionEstar nope, not even when I raised like hell it blows, see the link. -- RTA 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Rodrigo. A pity ... by itself it is beautiful and calming. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination @Rodrigo.Argenton: Thanks for your explanations. But you consider this one better then? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)