Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colonnade and sky of Saint Paul (Rome).JPG

File:Colonnade and sky of Saint Paul (Rome).JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 10:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Colonnade and sky of Saint Paul (Rome).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colonnade and sky of Saint Paul (Rome).JPG

1080

560

1107

1160

6016

4000

unsharp and double contours looking like motion blur --Kreuzschnabel 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 10:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico talk 10:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting view. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support impressive! It was obviously a good day! --Hubertl (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Hubertl’s assumption and impression but the upper part shows similar ghost contours as the fountain image recently nominated. I don’t know if there’s something wrong with your lens, or the sensor, or maybe there’s a glass filter screwed to the lens which should be removed for full sharpness (there are always the brighter parts affected, could well be reflections in a poorly coated filter). While the effect is minor it still makes the image look partly unsharp, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   Comment I think, you are right Kreuzschnabel, on the other side it makes me sad, that it needs an 3.500 Euro-equipment (Full format camera plus professional lens) to realize this high claims. I don´t want to question the basic requirements for FP at all, but we both know that in the printed implementation even that would be sufficient as long as it does not have to be printed on A3 size. But this is just an academic diskurs.--Hubertl (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment It does not at all take such expensive gear to take sharp pictures. Anyway, two thirds of this image are perfectly sharp. Is it really too much asked to have the third part in similar quality? --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support I think the composition outweighs the technical shortcomings in this case. Technically one probably couldn't do it better with this equipment and it's not too bad at all. Sure, the sharpness could be a little better but I think what counts for FP in the end is a well done interesting idea. That's what I see here. Apart from that, San Paolo fuori le mura is one of my favorite places in Rome.--Code (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me, the entire result counts – which is a good idea (given here) as well as a really good performance. An outstanding idea might outweigh technical shortcomings of course (for me this is the case with File:Flock of Seagulls (eschipul).jpg, that’s why I don’t oppose that one despite the overexposed right side) but this image would only get my support if it were perfectly sharp at its most interesting part, which is the top. That’s why it’s not outstanding for me. I wouldn’t care if the lower part was slightly blurred though. Just to explain my verdict if you think it’s too hard. --Kreuzschnabel 07:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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