Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golconda Fort 002 - Baradari.jpg

File:Golconda Fort 002 - Baradari.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2015 at 15:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Golconda Fort 002 - Baradari.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golconda Fort 002 - Baradari.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
•  Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support good work. In general, I like Bgags work. Thanks for nominating! --Hubertl (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose a bit oversharpened. --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree with Laitche but would support if the problem is fixed. Poco² 09:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the re-processing from the RAW file is executed, it would be much better :) --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked him on his talk page. -- Christian Ferrer 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have imported a new version. --Bgag (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bgag, but, to be honest, I cannot perceive much different versus the former one. What did you change? do you have a RAW file (I could give it a try if you like)? Poco² 09:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have a RAW version of this picture. I will send you the original one anyway. Maybe you could do better than me. --Bgag (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I have imported a new version. Thanks to Poco a poco. --Bgag (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Oversharpening issue mentioned above seems to be resolved now, but the centered composition and low angle don't really wow me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, this one looks way more interesting to me composition-wise. --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Poco² 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Softer but loss details? surfaces of rocks look too smooth + per El Grafo. --Laitche (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Laitche, looks like a cameraphone it is so smudgy and the subject/composition/angle is far from FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)