Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Dreibeinkonstruktion.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Dreibeinkonstruktion.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 10:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Neutral Interesting, but is it beautiful? --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- A question for yourself or for me? Counterquestion: Has a FP-object always to be beautiful? Nevertheless what beauty really is. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- A picture does not necessarily need to be beautiful here, that's right, but the impression of cold and partially even dirty concrete is not what I favour. The picture is technically good though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- FP doesn't need only pictures of churches and cute animals. Beside of this: the concrete is very well-kept and not dirty. Please concern: this building is exposed to wind and rain and stands on top of a mountain. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree an FP does not have to be beautiful... The crop seems a little tight at the top. Is there a special reason you are not showing us more? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because of concentrating on the unique tripod construction. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- CommentWhat exactly shows this image? Could you translate title from german (9i guess?) to english? D kuba (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- "TV tower Saint-Chrischona. Tripod construction".--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. So now i'm Neutral due to tight crop, even in a bottom left corner. D kuba (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. So now i'm
- "TV tower Saint-Chrischona. Tripod construction".--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral Is there even a tiny bit more height you can give, or is that the limit to the image you took? The very top of the tripod is cropped. Compared to this photo the scale of the base is hard to judge. As an abstract photo, the trees and bright colours detract compared to this photo. Have you considered black and white to create an abstract photo of the concrete tower? -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral At the opposite of Colin it's more the shadowed trees at left that I don't like very much, and I agree that a (people) scale would have been a good thing, however it's a striking image IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- For scale reasons you have a door. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Quite a mundane shot. -- Fotoriety (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to mix up banality with relevance. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you think so. -- Fotoriety (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to mix up banality with relevance. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support The longer I look at it the more I like it. But I think such an abstract picture would be even better in black/white. --Code (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I thought about converting into blach/white. But from my point of view this image is not abstract but a usual detail view of a very relevant part of this building. It's an architectual/ingenieering documentation and why not showing all colours? --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support Striking image of a modern structure. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral The perspective is very eye catching but it's really frustrating that I can't go higher (even just a bit, at least to the top of the jonction of the three legs) while browsing. Added a note to show you a stitching error. And color space again... - Benh (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
