Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg Süd (Hamburg-Altstadt).04.29971.ajb.jpg

File:Hamburg Süd (Hamburg-Altstadt).04.29971.ajb.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 17:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg Süd (Hamburg-Altstadt).04.29971.ajb.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg Süd (Hamburg-Altstadt).04.29971.ajb.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info Cultural heritage monuments from 1890s and 1960s along Nikolaifleet canal in Hamburg. One of many great architecture images by Ajepbah. I appreciate the composition, the perfect light, and the contrast between old and newer buildings. Uploaded and created by Ajepbah. Nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose chromatic aberration and focus problem (See notes), horizontals look cut --The Photographer 17:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree about the "focus problem", the bridge is just foreground. I'm really struggling to see the CA here.--ArildV (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Right. And an unsharp foreground is less than outstanding, in my opinion (and apparently in The Photographer's opinion). I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak  Oppose Image is good, but somehow there's no wow for me (maybe it's to overcrowded). [And I can't see any CA or focus problem]. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose In addition to the noted technical issues, I find the composition to have been too ambitious—I see how the photographer wanted to capture the abstract patterns of the buildings, but there's too many of them, and they clash. A simpler focus might have worked better, as well as eliminating the technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The clash of the patterns is just what I wanted to show with this picture ;-) This is the complete view, here (still with focus problem in foreground), here, and here are simpler focuses of the main subject. --Ajepbah (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Comment - I like the complete view best. Some of the whites look blown, but otherwise, it's a good picture. I don't know whether it would be featured; some people might perhaps find some fault with the crop or perspective of the nearest building as well as the glary light and blown whites, but I would vote to feature it, based on the quality of the composition to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support in my eyes the composition works --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good study of the buildings in the images you link to. I think here you need to be perpendicular to the Hamburg Süd building. The bottom of the frame is a little bit soft. Possibly slightly too many elements per Daniel. I recommend you try a stitched photo, which would let you downsize a little so hiding any quality issues with a less-than-zeiss-Otus-lens and avoids the corner-softness of wide angle lenses (e.g. File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg is sharp from edge to edge, yet uses a cheap plastic prime lens and has a very wide angle of view). I find that the clinical sharpens achieved from such a technique really suits the high-tech buildings. -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)