Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg

File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 17:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg

Berlin Cathedral during Berlin Festival of Lights 2012

•  Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment - fine ... but tilted to the left aprox 1 degree --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, the perspective was not 100% central (the fountain is exactly central in front of the cathedral), because there where many people and there was no space. Besides the central perspective would be seen from a footpath and my position was about 1m higher, so that I could better photograph above the annoying people. So I think the image is OK, because a correction would be a falsification. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that the angle from the side means the building won't be square-on and shouldn't be "corrected" to be so, but I think Villy Fink Isaksen was referring to an overall rotation of the image 1 degree anticlockwise. For example the communication tower in the distance is angled and becomes truly vertical if I rotate clockwise by 1 degree. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly Colin --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, I will correct this. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
        •  Info The corrected version is now online. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Cons: no doubt the lighted building is beautiful & feature-worthy, but the photo in its entirety negates it being featured status. The tower in the background ruins the composition, as does the people and fountain in the foreground and the rather unsharp right tower. But i can understand that the unsharp right tower and people was due to a lower shutter speed to capture the light. Again, nice but not quite worthy.Fotoriety (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the tower and the fountain are there and it is impossible to take a photo without them. The problem with the shutter is, that the projection an the cathedral facade changed very fast (maybe every 15 seconds). So it is also impossible to expose for example 30 seconds or more. Another problem was, that most people stood there motionless, what means, that I had to expose a few minutes. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Big wow. Could you please correct the tilt noticed by Colin and Villy Fink Isaksen ? You could also clone out the man in front of the fountain, and some other disturbing details ( lighting screens of pocket cameras, etc...). But it is a FP to me anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose perspective distortions, posterization, copyright problem, overall too dark (I prefer a brighter illumination, IMHO not the best of the series (but I'm not sure which is the best)). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yarl ✉ 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- VolodymyrF 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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