Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg/2

File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 07:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info City walls of Tallinn, all by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You should mention that you are renominating the same picture 3 days after the other nomination finalised. I see the same problems like in the former nomination (sharpness is better now, though). The lighting is not balanced. 80% of the subject is in shadow and although the centered area is closed to the camera and drawing some attention it belongs to that are. Btw, the red halo around the last tower on the right is still visible, I added a note. Poco² 09:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I find the rules you are referring to somewhere? Or have you again made up there rules yourself? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rule about that? no, probably there is none. Do you really have the need to have everything in written because otherwise it is bullshit? Reminding (and linking) a former nomination would fall in a category that I'd call courtesy or fair play, or common sense. Everybody just does it, but fine, it is just up to you. And please, stop your ironic comments, I'm getting tired. Poc o² 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Lighting unfortunate, gray sky at right not pleasant to me (BTW: I abstained from voting last time (like presumably many others) because I thought that the image was not a FP, while I would not have felt too bad if it had become one. Generally a lack of votes doesn't have to mean that nobody noticed the image and therefore I find it a bit too much to renominate it straightaway.)--DXR (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your point but refuse to believe it. It is much featureable than so many other photos prompted (I'm talking about my own photos). This is unique view with good quality and valued image. The place is in unesco world heritage list and a cultural heritage monument of Estonia. I believe in this photo. I am sure it won't be successful but I get some feedback (for example from you)instead or abstain. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am certain that the subject is featurable, but isn't there any way to improve the lighting? Of course I do not know how hard it would be for you to shoot the place again, but personally I would even take "nice" clouds and even lighting over this (especially with the right part which looks recovered from burned out to me). Also, I think that one might improve the composition a bit, after all it appears to me that the city walls are quite vast and there might be a slightly better location on offer. Just my opinion, of course.--DXR (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This picture is taken from west. In winter at our latitude the sunrise bearing is approximately 140 degrees and sunset bearing is approximately 220 degrees. So no back light is available in winter. But in winter the snow acts like a huge reflector lighting the wall. In summer the trees are in leaves that would cover the wall. In addition, green grass and trees in leaves absorb the light rather than reflect it. I don't want to change the sky, I like the gradient effect it is so much better than a uniform blue. I skimmed the categories before the nomination and I didn't find any better angle or view to capture the wall. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I do understand you, sun position is bad enough here in Paris, and I appreciate your efforts. Perhaps you find the time to try again another time --DXR (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say it's bad, I think its good. Again, according to guidelines: "Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not usually the best light as it flattens the subject. Side lighting often gives a better 'texture' to surfaces." --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but it also throws massive shadows which are the reason why this image will probably not succeed. But each to their own. --DXR (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary, since there is almost no direct sunlight, there are no harsh shadows on the main object. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- featurable subject for sure but not in this lighting; perhaps try again later in the year. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Urmas Haljaste: It would be better to withdraw this nomination and create another with the other image, as the other had more votes in support. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I uploaded a new version of this image that is exactly the same image you are referring. So this is the "other image".--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problems people are raising are common to both images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]