Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochhaus Neue Donau Vienna from NW on 2012-08-08.png

File:Hochhaus Neue Donau Vienna from NW on 2012-08-08.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 17:14:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Hochhaus Neue Donau ("High-rise New Danube"), a modern residential building in Vienna from the north-west on August 8, 2012. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Robert F. Tobler (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Robert F. Tobler (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like this photo very much but I'm not sure whether to support it for a feature, because the very dark trees at the bottom bug me. They're so dark that even at full size, they form what's pretty much an undifferentiated mass. However, the picture of the building is excellent. I'm not sure what the solution is - is there a time of day when more light would hit the trees and the building would still look good? If so, maybe it's best to try retaking the photo then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the times of the day where the trees are illuminated, the illumination of the building is boring. A few steps to the right, the trees are not visible but the streets, billboards and other things at the foot of the building destroy the clean image that is maintained with the trees as a silhouette (see

). --Rftblr (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree with your appraisal of these two views. I find this view far superior to the one with very dark trees. If you or someone else offers a nomination of the second picture, I'd be happy to support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the other version I even had to move quite a bit forward to avoid a crowded foreground. Thereby the perspective distortion on the top of the building is significantly and unnaturally exaggerated. This is also why I nominated the version with the dark row of bushes. --Rftblr (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless, I think the result was good. Let's see what others say, and I hope that our conversation doesn't result in making people reluctant to vote or express their opinion, as sometimes happens, somehow, as a result of conversations... Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A good QI, but nothing about this says FP to me, especially not the shadow over the leaves. INeverCry 20:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the shadows. If light were coming from the left, there wouldn't be a shadow on the front of the building. The black areas at the bottom are also distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could stand for the bottom to be cropped in a little more, but for me the building is so well done otherwise that it doesn't matter. As for the angle of the light ... when we make that part of our reason to oppose, we should consider whether the opposite angle was possible. Since we know the date, time and exact location from which this image was taken, I decided to plug it into the Photographer's Ephemeris and see if that would be possible.
Yes, it seems, it would be ... but only if the photographer had gotten up early and shot just after dawn. Whether the image would be well-served by golden-hour light is an exercise for the visualizer, and I am also so far removed from my last (and so far only) visit to Vienna that I cannot possibly say whether the sun would have completely lit the building at that hour. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INeverCry. --Karelj (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Rftblr (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]