Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong Harbour 45.jpg

File:Hong Kong Harbour 45.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 17:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you should elaborate a bit on the categorization of the file page and make it more specific. I also propose adding geodata. --Slaunger (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Wilfredo, but too dark. Yann (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider this type of photography should be dark, if your intention is to show the hours, the photograph must be dark. In this case, my intention was to show the contrast between light and darkness of the port of Hong Kong. To say that this picture is dark is very true because the technique of this style is. It is very difficult to know how to differentiate an error photograph and intentionally achieved, especially when some kind of art is the result of the error. In this case, I tried that this photograph was dark, by the light we recognize that there is darkness. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The darkness isn't the problem IMO. It's that there's too much of one color of light, and it's not a good one—that horrible "bastard amber" produced by sodium-vapor lighting. It makes the city look a lot more hellish than I remember it being last summer. If it weren't for the distinctive Tsing Ma bridge (which avoids that lighting), I wouldn't know we were looking at HK. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Daniel. Couldn't that be corrected throuh white balance? It's also very dark, but I can't tell if that would still be a problem with more variation in colour. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks to the previous reviews, I have decided to reveal another version. Thank you very much for your feedback. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better! Yann (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely better. Leaving now and won't be able to change this, so I'll support although I'm still slightly unsure. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, this version is much better! --Halavar (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice image. :-) But: Some elements at the bottom are disturbing.--XRay ^talk 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]