Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laurier Quebec mall, Québec city.jpg

File:Laurier Quebec mall, Québec city.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 23:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Major stitching errors on, for example, the horizontal beams above. dllu (t,c) 00:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please add more examples. --The Photographer 00:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --The Photographer 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've changed the FP category as this is Places/Interiors, not Architecture/Cityscapes. The overall scene is too dark, and don't think people walking round the mall would experience it that gloomy. I appreciate it is hard to handle the exposure range here, but many of our FP interiors do. The eye catches the central monitor advertisement, which is blown. You can see from the top two revisions of File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg that even a single exposure DSLR photo can recover that sort of brightness. The EXIF aperture f/2.8 and the relatively low resolution for a stitch makes me suspect this was taken with a mobile phone? If so, well done, but I don't think the quality reaches the standards for Places/Interiors at FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Podzemnik and User:Dllu please can you apply any Notes using the tool on this FP candidate page and not directly on the file page. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Notes on a photo, Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local annotations and Commons:Image annotations. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't has more quality of it because it was taken using a cheaper Chinese very compact camera Yi. --The Photographer 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Right, sorry for that, I deleted my notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The issues Colin identified need to be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to be able to support. Can you make edits that deal with at least some of his points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: IMHO has a dslr camera not should be a requeriment in FPC, it's allready a formal Quality Image on commons. I don't underestand, objectively, FPC quality requeriments --The Photographer 02:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're judging the image, not the camera. Cart takes FP's with a 1"-sensor compact camera all the time, but the tiny sensor in most compact and phone cameras will struggle to compete at FP -- I think we have a few that were taken outdoors in great light. FP is for the "finest on Commons" and the Places/Interiors category is full of technically very fine photos, many of which are super sharp and detailed and also handle the dynamic range seen in interiors. You wouldn't expect such a camera to compete at FP for macro or bird photography either. -- Colin (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm impressed with this photo, but you do have a lot of tough competition in the interiors category, so why don't you tweak the photo so that there is no longer a blown area, for example. And was the mall actually brighter in general? If it was, you could work on that, too, right? Anyway, looking for an objective set of criteria that automatically result in passing at FPC doesn't work when "wow" is one of them, and I think you would agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]