Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de Paris DSC 0846w.jpg

File:Notre Dame de Paris DSC 0846w.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2014 at 23:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fortunately, when I captured this picture there was a stage set up for an event providing an elevated point of view within near distance of the building. This gives a good feeling of the dimensions of this huge cathedral. -- P e z i (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good picture but far from outstanding (what a FP should be). The top of the cathedral is too soft and the crop is too tight for my taste. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question@Alvesgaspar: I agree with you regarding the crop and the softness, but what kind of picture of the western facade of Notre-Dame de Paris could be "outstanding" ? It is as it is...--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is a good question @Jebulon: , and I have been wondering the same thing. I had a look at some of the many other photos of the Western facade on Commons, and this one is one of the very best or perhaps the best at giving an "encyclopedic" clean view of the facade, well justified by its VI status within a daylight scope. One option could be to illustrate the size of it by moving closer, such that the perspective is seen, but personally I think it makes it worse. But although a very valuable illustration of the topic it is not so interesting as depicted (to be frank I find it boring, there, I said it), so I agree with Alvesgaspar on this point. So what can you do? The degrees of freemdom are the wheather, light, and camera position or you can spice it up with another element to it, for improving the "wow". Quasimodo would have been a nice touch, but, naah, nor realistic. I think though that the light could have been better, e.g., evening sun with a black rain shower in the background, or as in this case add some spice in the form of a flock of flying birds. Or taken suspended from a drone to get a more interesting POV, but there may be legal issues.... --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: (This "ping thing" is very useful!) -- Well, a possibility is that no matter what you do, no featurable photo of this "boring" monument is possible! But you will agree with me that the variables are so many that some outstanding result is possible with the right combination of light, angle, sky ... ~~ Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amazing coincidence, this edit conflict of two users (Slaunger and I) saying basically the same thing!! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jebulon: , @Alvesgaspar: , I am only pinging you now because I am a physicist trying to see if I can start a chain reaction .--Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ping-ping to both of you ! I agree, the light is a bit flat. But as for the point of view, remember it is unique: it was taken from a stage built for celebrating the 850th anniversary of the building, so I'm afraid we will have to wait a bit until.... Some time...--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jebulon: , it is a good point you have regarding the rather unique camera position, but if you do a Google seacrh for drone views of the Notre Dame, you can get a pretty spectacular view of the Western facade from 100 m height from a drone. Unfortunately, I cannot post a link here as it is being blocked by the spamfilter, but it is www dot 360cities dot net. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: illegal.--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Very interesting POV but unfortunately the upper half of the image is too blurred; needs lens correction post-processing. Sting (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]