Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Jay New York September 2016 002.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Fort Jay New York September 2016 002.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 05:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)- Support INeverCry 06:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support - This subtle composition felt borderline for FP to me, but what made me decide to support is the historical importance of the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my support in favor of alternative version. --Ivar (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)- Support --cart-Talk 07:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Not “wow” at all. The quality is good enough, but not perfect. IMO, there was no reason to take this photo towards evening. On the one hand, special atmosphere of the evening isn't “drawn” here, on the other, the evening light isn’t good and we have the rather dark, dull photo. (P.S. As a photo of an important historical place it can be nominated at Valued Picture Project). Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC).- Oppose As Dmitry Ivanov (more or less). Good composition, but very bad light, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality is ok but the shades prevent to see the details.--Zcebeci (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support On the whole, while the contrast between sides may be greater than desired I like this one better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Like others I think too much of this too dark (though I'm sure that's how it was, rather than just being underexposed). It's not a remarkable enough scene and the centred composition demands more symmetry than we have here. The grass is also not photogenic. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Hubertl 14:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Alt
[edit]
- Info @INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Iifar, W.carter, and Johann Jaritz: @Dmitry Ivanov, Jebulon, and Zcebeci: I have made a brighter version. If you think about it, there is no better time to take this photo (which faces south) than sunset; mid or late afternoon would have created harsh shadows in the moat which could be resolved only by weakening light (i.e. waiting until few minutes before sunset), and noon and early afternoon would simply produce awful colors. The morning is just a mirror image of afternoon, and after sunset is not possible as Governors Island is only open during the summer, until 7 PM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like them both, but this one is perhaps a bit of an improvement. INeverCry 02:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I prefer this one. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutral The light has became much better; the lines of the fort make the great “diagonal-symmetric” composition; but, IMO, the photo has some shortcoming, too. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC).- Oppose Per my comments above. It is hard to be objective when we know it was actually taken in darker conditions, and raising the exposure a stop might often be acceptable, but sliding the shaddow slider to +100 has resulted in a washed out look, and highlighted the noise in the shadows, which (combined with DoF limits) rob much of the image of sharpness. It's a QI though. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, not really better --Hubertl 14:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
