Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé) (2).jpg

File:Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé) (2).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2022 at 06:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Interesting shapes, and the angle and composition work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and light, shows the situation of the castle and allows at the same time to study many details of it. --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas In favor of edited version Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to disturb: this is nice, but is it one of the most outstanding images here? For example, the light could be more interesting, there are almost no shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Uoaei1. This is a good QI but a bit too straightforward to be featured. The light is flat, colours a bit on the cold side. Good quality but not that outstanding for me. --Kreuz schnabel 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Everything right and OK with this but it deserves stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I think that the photo is actually quite good, what could be better is the processing (e.g. the while balance is a bit cold). It would be easy to improve this if we had a raw image file, but even on base of the JPEG file some optimizations seem possible. I have uploaded a somewhat experimental editing; it may be overdone or too weak, depending on personal taste, but would you consider this (or a similar editing) as an improvement? Maybe together we can find a solution which mitigates some of the critique and makes you re-consider the image. Just wanting to help, --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: This editing is also based on my personal memory of that castle; it’s more than 10 years that I was there, but I remember the red sandstone walls to be quite colourful, therefore I have emphasized that colour a bit more. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems that it doesn’t work without a ping, sorry. @Gzen92, Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, Urban Versis 32, and Milseburg: Would you also support the edited version? @Uoaei1, Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, and Kruusamägi: Could you please take a look at the edited version and comment whether it would mitigate your reservations about this photo or not? Thank you very much! Additional hints about how to improve the edited version further are very welcome. I am sorry for the extra work this means, but before considering to offer an edited version as an alternative some feedback would be useful. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely much more wow on the edited version. --Kreuz schnabel 07:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edited version is much more vivid. If it's true to life, I'd support making the change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, Kreuz, Ikan and Kruusamägi! So it seems reasonable to offer the edited photo as alternative version – please see below. I hope it is OK for you, Gzen92, that I edit your nomination and add the alternative; I just want to help a bit. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, the picture is really better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I prefer now the new version. --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is good, but for FP, I'd expect more intriguing light conditions. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do like the edited version. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version edit

Support The edited version brings out the quality of the photo better and is still true to life. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this version, the careful editing has helped to bring out the best of it --Kritzolina (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks better, but now a bit oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more vibrant than the orig, per Aristeas and Kritzolina. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé) (2) edited (1).jpg