Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburger Innenhafen Five Boats Abend 2014.jpg

File:Duisburger Innenhafen Five Boats Abend 2014.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 09:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me
Another Duisburg nomination :) -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wow and scene nice, technical quality could be just a bit better, but still FP imo. --DXR (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support. What do you mean by "technical quality"? Do you mean "image quality" or compositional aspects? Note that this is a single shot (no HDR) - developed from one RAW file. Unfortunately I do not own a full frame camera or a camera with higher resolution :) --Tuxyso (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not talking about size, just have the feeling that the sharpness on both sides' buildings is just a bit low, but as I said not a huge issue. --DXR (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow for Duisburg here! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I´m thinking the same as DXR. The composition with the nice reflection and colours looks pretty great. But the overall image quality could be better. Looks a little noisy and not 100% sharp. But as DXR said, it´s not a huge issue. ;-) --mathias K 10:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DXR, Leviathan1983: I've worked on sharpness and noise and uploaded a new version. Please let me know if you think that this is an improvement. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, sorry. It wasn't that sort of unsharpness that would be solved by sharpening, so I'm not changing from weak. --DXR (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that´s strange. Dit you purge your cache? Cause now I´m home and looking at both versions in LR, and for my taste this was a big improvement for the picture. The noise is way better and the sharpness looks better to. Good job! --mathias K 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) @:Tuxyso Aber als Hausaufgabe kannst du dir dieses Motiv, mit genau der Komp als high-res-belichtungsfusionspano ins Heft schreiben! Mein pro haste schon... ;-) [reply]

@mathias: Die Hausaufgabe nehme ich gerne an :) Weit ist der Innenhafen von meiner Home Base zum Glück nicht entfernt. Wobei ich die richtige "Hardware" (Nodal Ninja) für ein solches Pano sogar dabei hatte. Allerdings hätte der Umbau vom Kugelkopf zum Nodalpunkt-Adapter wohl solange gedauert, dass das schöne Licht dahin gewesen wäre. Ich war auch so ganz zufrieden mit dem Resultat. Klar, D800-Qualität ist es natürlich nicht... ---Tuxyso (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@:Tuxyso Na dann bin ich mal gespannt wie´s wird... Das jetzige Resultat is aber definitiv schon mal zufriedenstellend! Grüße, mathias K 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso, ich möchte nicht überkleinlich sein und ein Weak support ist ja immer noch vor allem ein Support, aber ich finde die Schärfe der rechten Häuserzeile für ein Bild vom Stativ einfach ein bisschen zu gering, vor allem am zweiten von links, und ich persönlich habe lieber ein wenig mehr Rauschen als eine doch relativ starke Weichzeichnung. Die Atmosphäre usw. ist natürlich super, und das ist auch das, was am Ende am meisten zählt. Ich hoffe, das nimmt mir hier keiner übel ;-). (Welches Objektiv war das denn, wenn man fragen darf?)--DXR (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

ich meine das af-s 10-24 bei 24mm., da ist es nicht besonders stark. Kann leider nicht nachschauen, da ich einige Tage unterwegs bin.--Tuxyso (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Stress! Ja, das deckt sich ungefähr mit meiner Erfahrung mit dem Objektiv, danke für die Info! --DXR (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 08:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Buildings lack sharpness against the sky but it's not serious enough to detract a lott—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! Still, there is room for improvement; the right side is leaning out Poco² 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's subtle, but you're right. Currently I cannot correct it (currently on a journey), but after the nomination the correction should be not big deal. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one! Halavar (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is only when you open this to full res to you really get a chance to appreciate it. My background for the day. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite dark and unassuming/uninteresting motif. WLMBP (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes