Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus-msu-0719-.jpg

File:Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus-msu-0719-.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2022 at 08:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Matthias Süßen -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exellent light, mood and composition. Because the verticals are almost vertical (we are not looking up or down), you may want to make them perfectly vertical (perspective correction); and you may want to correct the green chromatic aberration on the edge at the right. --Aristeas (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I will upload a new version tomorrow. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I agree with Aristeas, in that there are borders in various places that would ideally be edited out. I think this is a very good low-light photo, though, and the motif is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ (Switching to Neutral per discussion below) My eyes keep drifting to that bit of boardwalk at the bottom. Looking at the location it seems possible to place the camera right at the edge of the boardwalk to capture a full reflection without any distractions. On the technical side, I subscribe to the shortcomings listed by Aristeas and would add low sharpness to the mix, seemingly caused by slight camera shake and/or diffraction. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julesvernex2, sorry. --A.Savin 00:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking but ~~barrel distortion at the top~~, in addition to the other problems. I will oppose if this is not fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you for the comments. I have uploaded a new version. I made a perspective correction and removed the chromatic aberrations. I also adjusted the cropping so that more foreground is now visible. In fact, I even tried to get closer to the water. There it was difficult to get all the reflection on the picture. Also, the front step was so half submerged, which didn't look so good, see here. The roof in the foreground is actually round. It fits exactly into the roof of the building opposite, as you can see on satellite images. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, indeed that half submerged step spoils the reflection! The idea of matching the curvature of the foreground to the opposing roof is awesome, but I'm not sure it comes across as intentional without the accompanying explanation. One last point on technicalities: the chromatic aberration correction went overboard and left a thick orange border across the entire building. I see you use Lightroom, so would propose instead one of these corrections: i) using the Defringe tool with around 14 on the green amount and 62/84 on the green hue; or ii) using the clone stamp tool at max magnification to manually remove the green fringing. The latter produces better results but is a but time consuming. Happy to help further if useful --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info Thank you so much for your tips! I had already worked with the Defringe tool (after the automatic correction did not give good results): Now I have adopted the parameters you suggested. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! I still see the orange border but it's probably just a temporary cache issue --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Julesvernex2. That is strange. They weren't there yet during the upload. But now I have also seen them and uploaded the file again. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, can see it now! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thank you very much, Matthias, for the new version! Perspective etc. are IMHO much better now. But I still see some orange areas at the right of the building, around the crane etc., even when I refresh the cache. That’s a pity because I really would like to support this photo. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Good eye, Aristeas! Matthias, when I apply the parameters above (14 on the green amount and 62/84 on the green hue) I get slightly better results (e.g., no orange borders on the right of the building) but the crane is still not perfect. I think this will require a bit of manual cloning to solve, happy to help you with this if useful --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the tips. Thank you for the tips. I have tried to fix the problem and uploaded a new version. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In several places, the newest version has more CA than the original. Look at the bottom of the extended roof and the circular windows. I am crossing out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFair enough. I'm sorry for that. I am permanently working on the image. For the latest version (which I just uploaded), Aristeas supported me.--Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like the CA on the bottom of the extended roof was replaced in part with blue, but it's all acceptable to me and the photo is beautiful, so I again support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear friends, please have a look at the newest version. (Most of) the purple fringing is gone. CA removal is really difficult in this case, among other reasons because the image is quite colourful and therefore some usual “replace colour” tricks etc. don’t work well. But I hope we are making progress ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I forgot. As the most irritating things are fixed now, I think it deserves support. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Facially, great! But it's rather soft all around, with CA still visible in places. It looks like it was a long exposure, which might explain this, but with incomplete metadata we can't tell so I don't feel like I can fairly !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daniel Case. Thank you for your comments as well. Aristeas and I were working on the .jpg last time and must have overwritten the metadata when uploading. The settings were: f/16 at ISO200 and 30 seconds exposure time. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good effort but I just don't see FP here. Overall, the building overall seems a little too dark, wtih muddy details. While the attempt at symmetry in the water is laudable, the boardwalk is disturbing. I did a test crop without it and liked the image better. If possible, consider going back to this location and making another attempt. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GRDN711. Thank you for your comment. As I mentioned above: I tried different perspectives and decided on this one. Of course, you don't have to like it. But you should know that it was not created by chance. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the lens correctionis not optimal. Camera raw is not so good in this point.- If you would use 20̬ percent of a BW-layer the gaudy colour are away.̥ Freddo213 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]