Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2013 -- 1-4.jpg

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2013 -- 1-4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2013 at 15:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nomination instead of the similar image with another crop. -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is better than before. A good architecture shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition. But, as mentioned before, clipped areas should not be grey. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've corrected the white balance. But I think it is impossible to change the color of any unlit part to white. I don't see a color problem. Sorry.--XRay ^talk 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have no issues with the color or white balance. My issue is that the clipped areas were white originally, otherwise they wouldn't be perfectly neutral flat grey now, and this grey looks weird because it's obviously overexposure. Leaving it white would be better. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really didn't understand. Which area do you mean? The building on the left side of the image is grey as the most parts of the building. The building on the right is grey too. On the buildings is also in daylight nearly nothing white.--XRay ^talk 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm referring to the brightest spots inside the windows. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added notes for two example areas now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! Now I understand. But IMO there are small bright areas and this is not very important. I tried to reduce this areas and the look isn't much better. So I have the image left as it is.--XRay ^talk 16:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still see the perspective problem mentioned before.--ArildV (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've corrected the perspective, but the problem was minimal.--XRay ^talk 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Maybe I saw the old version.--ArildV (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the lights, and there is not the slightest consideration of the two trees on either side, but there are!--Pava (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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