Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown Queens Bavaria Schatzkammer Residenz Munich.jpg

File:Crown Queens Bavaria Schatzkammer Residenz Munich.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 14:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biennais, Nitot and Leblond - Photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support New in "Commons", a masterpiece of the french 19th-century jewelry, made in Paris for Queens of Bavaria in 1806-1807 (altered in 1867), when the bavarian electorate was erected as a kingdom, allied of Napoleon. In use until 1918. Gold, silver, pearls, diamonds and other gems. On display (behind a glass...) at the "Schatzkammer", in the Residenz of Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. IMO it would better with the full base (at the bottom).--XRay ^talk 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, such a reason for oppose to this kind of image leaves me speechless...--Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ups. Sorry. It's a good picture, but IMO it looks incomplete with a significant part of the base.--XRay ^talk 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you elaborate a bit on the shooting conditions? I obviously have no business with this sort of photography and will therefore not make a vote, but the exif leaves me a bit wondering. Did you hand-hold it for 0.2s or could you push it against something stable? It looks a bit soft (in the sense of denoised) to me for a ISO 400 image. --DXR (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speechless again... Lack of base of the cushion, and questions about Exif Data, that's only what suggests this picture ? I took this image hand hold (or maybe I used the glass as stable surface, I don't remember). I post processed with Lightroom5, and after that with GIMP. I used luminance and color denoising with Lightroom5, adjusted sharpness a very little, and the white balance too. After that, with GIMP, I used the selective blur tool in order to correct the noise of some pearls, one after the other. I removed some disturbing elements in background by cloning out, and corrected the perspective a very little bit. This image was taken without tripod nor flash in a museum full of tourists, behind a glass, it is as difficult as it is interesting, a real challenge.--Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not looking to get into an argument here, but I'm not sure you should be "speechless" that an image of a crown, even if it's admittedly a beautiful one, will not blow everyone of his feet if nominated as a commons FP. As I said, I will refrain from voting, but I think my question regarding the quality was legitimate and your comments help assess the quality of your work here in a postive way. --DXR (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it was challenging to capture this picture does not add any value to the photo. Photographers often mistakenly think it does but I'm afraid it doesn't. Some get rewarded because they were lucky, some work hard and and the outcome is slightly above the average. That's life.. --85.253.101.104 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense imo. Of course it makes a difference, but IP commenters have usually presented themselves to be fairly stubborn in their opinions, so what's the point of debating here... --DXR (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As for me, I just asked for assessments, nothing else. I gave explanations because I was asked for. I don't think long discussions make a photo better (I tend to think the contrary). Shall I suppress Exif Data next time ? That's the question... Something like "Love it, or leave it"--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once I'm not bothered by the bottom crop ... because the base blends so well into the background that you might not notice unless it's pointed out. And, really, the crown captures so much attention you won't mind. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support given the circumstances quality is very decent. High EV! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropped base allows the attention to concentrate on the crown. Enough of the base is there to let the imagination (our brain) 'see' the missing part. Very good technical quality and high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I understand the challenging conditions (I've been there) and I appreciate the editing work of Jebulon done here but the quality is still not at QI level to me (yes, I doubt it can get better, but that's a different topic): not enough DoF, dark halos around the pearls in the background, some of the reflections don't look natural to me, it is ccw (taking the cross in the top as reference) and overall lack of sharpness. I wouldn't manage it better, but I just judge the result. Poco² 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As one can see here, the so-called tilt is in real. I think there are also positive things to say "in pro" for this picture, but even negative, I thank you for your detailed and useful review, apart of the tilt, nothing of what you say is really wrong... BtW, it is already a QI...--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant FP level instead of QI level, I guess I spend too much time at QI... And, of course there are positive things to say about it, and as said, I will not even try to get this shot. Poc o² 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects