Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matenadaran, Ereván, Armenia, 2016-10-03, DD 22.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Matenadaran, Ereván, Armenia, 2016-10-03, DD 22.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 20:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, commonly referred to as the Matenadaran, is a repository of ancient manuscripts, research institute and museum in Yerevan, Armenia. Founded in 1953 it holds one of the world's richest depositories of medieval manuscripts and books which span a broad range of subjects, including history, philosophy, medicine, literature, art history and cosmography in Armenian and many other languages. All by me, Poco2 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Question - I like the photo, but please discuss the amount of blue in your photo, compared to the grayness of photos by User:Halavar such as File:2014 Erywań, Matenadaran (18).jpg. I haven't been there, but on the face of it, the gray color looks more likely to me. However, I could easily be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment We can see colour of the building also in other images. Ikan Kekek has right, there is too much amount of blue in nominated image. --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Halavar and Ikan Kekek: Changing the WB is not a big deal but sorry, I'm not convinced, that I've to apply it. Different lighting conditions (time, weather, etc.) have a direct influence in the result. I've seen similar pictures with these tones, too. Within a range I think that some deviations among versions should be fine. Poco2 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support The Matenadaran is as grey in real life as possible. The other linked picture is extremely warm that's why it's looks more brownish (unrealistically so). I think this image is, if you think nothing else of it, is a good example for images to shoot in the harsh midday sun, especially because grey objects don't care. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The lighting is too harsh. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)- Oppose per KoH, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support - The lighting is too harsh for what? I find it fine. I think this is the best photo of this motif on Commons (ergo, it should also be a VI). I think it was right to ask the question about the white balance, but it's very possible that the greater amount of blue in the sky accounts for all or most of the difference from Halavar's photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment the contrasts and shadows are a bit too harsh for this motif. Just imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I understand your point of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Kenny; nothing about this image (save the slight unsharpness at the top of the building, but that's a minor part of it) rubs me the wrong way. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Shadows are too strong --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the light, it gives a good amount of definition to the shapes and looks really good on the geometric details due to the almost perfect 45° shadow. — Julian H.✈ 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'd like to "support" (!) then, Julian... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Martin Falbisoner: Oh, yes, of course. Sorry. Fixed. — Julian H.✈ 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH. --Karelj (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Too harsh lighting and strong shadows. -- Pofka (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Poco2 15:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
