Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Israel-2013-Aerial-Temple Mount 03.jpg

File:Israel-2013-Aerial-Temple Mount 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2013 at 03:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Israel-2013-Aerial-Temple Mount 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Israel-2013-Aerial-Temple Mount 03.jpg

•  Info Sunset aerial view of the Temple Mount, and some of the surrounding Old City of Jerusalem, created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Godot13 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but too blurry/grainy. Medium format digital tends to be surprisingly bad at high ISO; a full-frame or even cropped-sensor DSLR will do better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment The resolution is outstanding and the photo is sharp. The only problem I see is colour noise, and good RAW editing tools are very efficient at reducing that without having a too significant impact on colours or detail of the image. I think this might work, I'm not certain though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion Julian H.. I have made a very slight adjustment using the raw file. Should I upload this as an ALT version, or simply to the existing file?-Godot13 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Use the same file, just overwrite it. -- -donald- (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have overwritten the file with a new version with very slight noise reduction. This is not an area of strength for me, so it may not be enough (or even correctable for an FP). Thank you KoH, Julian H., and -donald- for your comments.--Godot13 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a lot better, but it's tilted again now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Julian H.- You were spot-on: I corrected tilt by 1.5 degrees.-Godot13 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Support To avoid a speedy closure. I think this deserves more reviews. JKadavoor Jee 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is extraordinary in the way that aerial photo from mid-format cameras are very rare on Commons. The resolution and detail quality is very good. But that's it for me. Nearly the complete area of the photo is in shadow - very unfortunate for an aerial view. I cannot see a compositional idea which is eye-catching for me. I am not sure but on the small bright areas there are imho some CAs visible. All in all a surely valueable image but no FP for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)