Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg

File:Royal Naval college-3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2009 at 17:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This images shows the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth on the River Dart. There has been a training centre for naval officers here since the 1860's but this building was completed in 1905.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice picture --Pudelek (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the composition and the detail could be much better. As a side note, the large size of the thumb fools the reviewer into thinking this is a panorama, which is not. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for any apparent "fooling" - it was certainly not my intention. Any larger crop would have brought in unnecessary detail. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors, very beautiful scenery, good EV and very good quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not detailed, blurry at the lower left corner and some of the trees, some blue artifacts at the houses in the front. A panorama would have been much better with higher res, more details, corrected levels and sharpness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Couldn´t find a decision right now. I like the light + the colors and the composition would be alright with me, but there´s these brightly lit houses in front. Also, level of detail/resolution is ~~low~~ not amazing. Nikopol (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how far you zoomed it but I can count the sheep in the field to the right and the rear...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better formulation? I think Alvesgaspar was right, you are somehow disappointed when you discover it´s not a panorama. Any chance of taking one? And as I stated, I´m not decided yet. In general, for me technical issues are all in all less important than the overall feeling of a picture and I might well approve in the end Nikopol (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - one of the reasons for doing this is to get feedback and I appreciate it. I will definitely go for a panorama next time I am that way but it won't be for a while yet. As I said I had no intentions of misleading with this but I had to crop the foreground or I would not have supported it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Composition ~~& resolution~~. Because you have such great elevation, I think even the front houses would be better cut out. ~~But of course then you would need a high-res panorama to get details on the College.~~ Definitely potential at this location. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, looking at it longer, I think the resolution is sufficient, so maybe a crop will be enough? --99of9 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can crop it (& will) if that is what folks want? The resolution shouldn't be an issue really. Not sure what is best - an "alt" one? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy to see (and I think support) an Alt, though I can't speak for anyone else. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAn impresive building, but the houses in front distract too much. They are also partially cropped which doesn't help either. It might well be that it is not possible to take a FP which shows this building entirely without using a helicopter since I'm afraid that the composition will collapse if the bottom part is just cropped away from this image. A very valuable image with nice colors anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version edit

Available if this is of interest to people :) Thanks.

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less sky in this version please? --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Ok, good for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the vertical balance of the composition isn't perfect IMO. Very valuable image anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support BESSER --Böhringer (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but oppose per Matti. I don't think the rule of thirds is meant to apply to the vertical axis of such a strongly horizontal photo. Severnjc (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /=--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Royal Naval college-3 alt.jpg