Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Symbol and statues in St. Peter.jpg/2

File:Symbol and statues in St. Peter.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 14:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Symbol and statues in St. Peter.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Symbol and statues in St. Peter.jpg/2

•  I withdraw my nomination All -- LivioAndronico talk 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico talk 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Correct composition. Parallel lines. Good sharp --81.38.60.218 09:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, only registered users are entitled to vote --Kreuzschnabel 10:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened (white fringes on edges in front of the sky), and though it’s not a bad pic, I see nothing outstanding in it. Not more than QI for me --Kreuzschnabel 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great compositon for me. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a QI. I can't see how "point the straight camera at the subject and press a button" counts as "great composition". -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• any photos just "point the straight camera at the subject and press a button", it depends where and how the points, learn to respect the opinions of others.Thanks. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody is above criticism. Don't try to make this an issue of respect or order to censor such. Perhaps Bernini should be praised for his composition (assuming he's the scuptor) but the photographer has earned no praise beyond holding the camera level and pointing it in the right direction. Featured Picture is about more than competence. It's a competent picture of these status. No more. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is your opinion ... ok, I respect it. you respect mine.--Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, if you have an opinion on this image I respect that. It's your opinion. But if you vote at featured pictures, then your vote has to be grounded in our criteria for judging such images. And then, it is open to criticism. If you can't deal with criticism, then don't vote. -- Colin (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys do not fight. Σπάρτακος, Colin is very critical, don't be offended. I think he has a lot more experience than me and others here.--LivioAndronico talk 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sharpening is too strong and only affects the strongest contrast edges, it seems. That gives it a very unnatural look in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 14:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Correct composition. Parallel lines. Good sharp (sorry, not noticed I was not logged in before) --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hate progressive JPEGs (Not my reason for an oppose). Trivial shot, and NR is pushed too far. - Benh (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• What mean Hate progressive JPEGs ??? And I don't use NR....trivial comment--LivioAndronico talk 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Your camera uses NR, depending on your settings. I am not sure if there is any camera to produce a JPEG without applying NR. --Kreuzschnabel 08:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I shot in RAW and the NR is off--LivioAndronico talk 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• The issue with NR has been explained before but to no avail. The image above does not even have any colourspace defined so isn't actually a valid JPG. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I see that no one knows explain--LivioAndronico talk 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Colin took the time to explain in detail, I did some explanations as well, though not as extensive as Colin's. Now if you don't read or get them... If you don't know meaning of basic terms like progressive JPEG, how shooting in RAW affect in camera NR, demosaicing and all, maybe you should take the time to read a book before submitting again at FPC. - Benh (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Clarify:I see that no one knows explain in a intelligently way,read this --LivioAndronico talk 00:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support not bad --Pudelek (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This reviewer was invited here 09:10, 17 March -- Colin (talk)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This reviewer was invited here 09:10, 17 March -- Colin (talk)
•  Support Good composition, very good sharpness and very good lighting. The small white fringes are not worth to be mentioned for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This reviewer was invited here 09:10, 17 March -- Colin (talk)
•  Oppose -- Correct picture, no bells ringing (which is a must for FP). The lighting is not the best even for a QI candidate. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Three supports turn up shortly after being invited (Uoaei1, Llez and Christian Ferrer also invited). Asking one friend, prior to to nomination, for their opinions might be a prudent thing to do, but pinging six friendly editors to come and look at a point when the nomination is tending towards failure, is improper IMO. I suggest this nomination is withdrawn. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I asked him to give me an opinion, if we support is personal decision. I could do it to their email, but since there is nothing wrong I did on their talk page. But you have nothing to do?--LivioAndronico talk 16:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway happened this too [1] and then?--LivioAndronico talk 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination--LivioAndronico talk 16:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)