Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow Jesus.jpg

File:Yellow Jesus.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 16:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded dabldy - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very wow, but I think the blurry birds should be cloned out. Then it would get my support. --Code (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ I like it with birds. Some too artsy colors but very good mood. Maybe with crop to zoom-in would be even better. --Mile (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Opted for bottom version. --Mile (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Tremonist:~~ @PetarM: Maybe without crop. This one is a typical example that the clouds are nice at the composition and helps in the wow factor. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Christ is not centred, not in the thirds, all this deformed objects, by the lack of the quality of the lens, decreases the final result. RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this Christ. And the "deformed objects" seem to be birds by the way. ArionEstar, why do you think I would be opposed to clouds? Pls lemme know. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tremonist: Opps! Wrong reply! Sorry! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionEstar: Never mind! :-) --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the rules above: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others... By the way, it's oversaturated. Not even a QI. --ViseMoD (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above.--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. — Julian H.^✈ 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very processed. That might be ok, but I don't care for the effect here. The composition isn't great, with centred subject and the shape of the top dark cloud unfortunate. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it's right now, no. -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 edit

Info Cloned stamped towers, birds, and other things, cropped to centralized Christ, and raised the black, and white, to give more contrast. -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed. unnatural colours. --ViseMoD (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Embedded ProPhoto RGB color profile is not recommended for web use. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dawn with the "alternatives"! This one does not add anything.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination too much cry for me for a photo that's not even mine (and I do not like that much)... -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 edit

Info Cloned stamped towers, birds, and other things, cropped to thirds, giving more focus on Christ watching the right side, and raised the black, and white, to give more contrast. -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Rodrigo Argenton's support! It really has wow! Anyway, thanks for your support and your contribution. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ArionEstar, I have a mixed feelings with this photo, Jesus there pass the idea of peace, and the clouds brings another mood, this should be calm, a slower shutter speed would be better. -- RTA 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also great (although most of the clouds were cut out, this crop is still nice for my support). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support small picture but great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as Alternative 1. --Code (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, RTA style :) --Laitche (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice textures and forms. --Pine^✉ 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The same reason as for File:Yellow Jesus.jpg --ViseMoD (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ProPhoto RGB color profile not recommended for web use. Use sRGB instead. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: Can you fix? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: : I do not know. I have not tried it before, but maybe. Not tonight though. I will have a look tomorrow. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose does not look like an "alternative", and this different picture is not better to me. Maybe a third, or a fourth, or a fifth "alternative"?--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this size, the quality should be better - especially sharpness is not good here and there are signs of overprocessing. — Julian H.^✈ 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's obviously processed, so one has to decide if the effect is good. I don't care for it and it is now quite a small image for FP. Both versions where fixed objects have been cloned-out must have a "retouched" template describing what was altered. It's ok to clone out birds, but not permanent objects without making this clear. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination too much cry for me for a photo that's not even mine (and I do not like that much)... -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: Really a pity. This one is to be FP without your withdraw. P.S.: I'm sure you have a photographic potential like the FP photographers (Diliff, Slaunger, Mile, etc...) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArionEstar: thank you, however read the comments of the original proposition, and a tip for you: here we have some fotos do caralho, *-*, if this level appears here in Commons, then you should nominate, some are more artistic (yeah, some are pure art), and as you saw one this thread, will not pass, but it is better than the okay or bad photos... ;) -- RTA 19:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rodrigo.Argenton: FPs are also small. See this one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ArionEstar: are you talking about it? I did not oppose only because of the small size only, but for the "protection" posture... photographers do that, example (read the comment), but for a FPC is not okay. -- RTA 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]