Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neuschwanstein Castle (532850).jpg

File:Neuschwanstein Castle (532850).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by cameralends @ Pixabay - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Josve05a (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight I was ready to support, but then I noticed that we already have 4 other FPs of this view: 1, 2, 3 and 4. No wonder, as this is certainly one of the most popular shots taken by foreign tourists in Germany. So how does this one hold up against the tough competition? OK, it has slightly punchier colors. It also has a higher resolution than the first 3. But at full resolution, it has some chromatic aberration and looks like there was too much sharpening or local contrast applied. Compare that to Thomas' Schloss_Neuschwanstein_2013.jpg and I think the reason for my oppose should become obvious: despite all efforts, there's a serious lack of actual sharpness. Not a bad image at all, but not among our very best. (Some of the other 3 should probably de-listed as well …) --El Grafo (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It´s the first made in July. ;-) --Hubertl 18:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and license reviewed. INeverCry 19:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. We should select the better in the MVR of the VIC page. Which is the most valuable ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For this type of composition I prefer this time of day. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per El Grafo. He's right that some of the other images of this view should be delisted at first if we're going to consider promoting this one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would have supported this in isolation, but the comparison El Grafo made really shows how much sharper Thomas' photo is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but insufficient sharpness. --Code (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this doesn't quite win some of the other versions of this same angle. The sharpness could be better... BUT I honestly do think that while Thomas Wolf's version was pin sharp looking and indeed a good presentation of the castle, the combo of sharpness and contrast editing might have been a little over the top which had caused some halos in lights on the castle surface. But as this is not the nomination for Thomas' picture... I simply say, this might not be the defining picture among the others. --Ximonic (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future I'd prefer to see some new angles of this castle and new lighting situations for FP. These are becoming a little too typical while they aren't bad pictures, though. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Josve05a (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]