Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg

File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2014 at 18:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Basler Münster - Hauptportal.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very good level of detail and perfect lighting. --Kreuzschnabel 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support a bit yellowish, but OK for a FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Oppose I change ma vote, because the "farce" ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I see just one farce and that is your behaviour, Alchemist. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Youe are right, this wasn't fair :-) canceled. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about colour appearance in sunlight

As I have already said at de.wiki (FPC): the minster is build from bright sandstone and was costly restored and cleaned. So the front looks bright and reddish-yellowish in sunny days. This is just a fact. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Damit: "So the front looks bright and reddish-yellowish in sunny days." wiedersprichst Du Dir nun selbst. Ein "sunny Day" liefert nun mal kein neutrales Licht. Außerdem sagte ich auf de:KEB: "im Vergleich zu Deinen anderen Bildern des Basler Münsters, sieht das Bild hier eben zu "gelbstichig" aus. Das ist auch nun mal ein Fakt. Aber, diese Diskussion brauchen wir nicht weiter fortführen, "denn Du hast ja immer Recht", egal welche Argumente man vorträgt. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Sicherlich liefert Sonnenlicht kein neutrales Licht, aber neutrales Licht ist ja auch eine Utopie in der Natur. Wenn du nun behauptest, das Bild sei gelbstichig dann impliziert das einen falsch gewählten Weißabgleich oder eine fehlerhafte Farbnachbearbeitung, die nicht stattgefunden hat. Da du nicht vor Ort warst und ich schon erlaube ich mir das richtig zu stellen, was deine Aussage unterschwellig vorwirft: dass hier Farben verfälscht dargestellt würden. Bilder zu unterschiedlichen Lichtsituationen gegeneinander in Bezug zu setzen und zu von einem Farbstich zu reden ist eben blanker Unsinn. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 😂--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Ich sagte doch schon: "Du hast ja immer Recht" und ja wir brauchen die Diskussion nicht fortzusetzen. Und ja ich war dort schon mal vor Ort und nur deswegen schrieb ich "gelbstichig". Es ist keine weitere Rede Wert. Das Bild ist trotzdem schön. Grüße, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Sehr wahrscheinlich noch vor der Restaurierung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support as Kreuzschnabel --Hubertl (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Arcalino (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 06:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 😏 This is a farce. You know what ? There are other pictures in this page to be reviewed...--Jebulon (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Jebulon is right. Is this the best we have here? Come on... So good quality, but nothing special. Yann (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To be clear: I've no opinion about the picture, my comment was about the last support vote...--Jebulon (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Und wieso muß nun gerade ich mein Voting begründen? --Ralf Roleček 14:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment As already written on German FPC: Technically well done, but nothing special. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Without understanding for the topic you will not find s.th. "special". --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely, people who do not support your photos have "no understanding" - what an elitist viewpoint! From a photographic viewpoint I see nothing special with this photo - that is imho the leveling for an FPC. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A portal is a portal is a portal. What "special" image of a portal do you wish? If you state such a argument you have to be bargin that I question it. Either you find a good argument or you run the risik that your opinion will not be noticed as argument but just as weak predication. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Technically well done, but nothing special" makes me smile because for me, the technical quality of this image is the special to make me support it. --Kreuzschnabel 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 yes! :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe das Portal selbst mehrmals fotografiert. Jedesmal habe ich mir die Ergebnisse ungläubig angeschaut, alles "schief" und doch gerade. Meine Wahrnehmung ist vielleicht anders als eure. Aber ich finde, Wlady hat es mit diesem Bild geschafft, das Ganze exzellent abzubilden. Hier eines meiner mißlungenen Versuche. Die Fußschwelle ist annähernd gerade, das Dach total schief. Klar kann man das in Photoshop irgendwie verzerren aber da stimmt doch was nicht. das Bild hier ist in meinen Augen ebenfalls an vielen Stellen schief aber das ist das Original ja auch. Deshalb mein Votum. --Ralf Roleček 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects