Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ramsau Kirche mit Wagendrischelhorn 2.jpg

File:Ramsau Kirche mit Wagendrischelhorn 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2021 at 14:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Church of Ramsau in front of the Reiter Alm mountain range, Bavaria, Germany -- Milseburg (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Just a question: obviously, the contrails were real, but would it be acceptable to remove them? MartinD (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, magnifique. --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr schön. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Beautiful photo, but please remove the contrails --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Change to Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is a bit harsh and the visitor at the left rather distracting, still a nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'm OK with the contrail, which is not bad-looking and just reminds us that this is a contemporary photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the contrails could be removed, imo, but they're not that big a deal. Strange that we don't have a single FP of this almost standard Bavarian scene, yet. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong shadow of the tree on the left and the person distracts the composition --Wilfredor (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Martin, Tournasol7, Frank Schulenburg, Charlesjsharp, Michielverbeek, Ermell, Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek, IamMM, Aristeas, Poco a poco, Agnes Monkelbaan, Llez, Wilfredor, and Cmao20: Thank you for the feedback. I removed the constain and the person. Let me know if that wasn't an improvement. The old version can be restored. It is difficult to find this popular place without people. Futhermore I brightened a bit the tree at the bottom left. --Milseburg (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the contrail was definetely an improvment. The person wasn't really disturbing to me as it somehow added some dynamic to the shot but also without it is a nice shot that deserves the star. Poco a poco (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I liked the person, but I have no problem with either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it either way. I think it's actually a very strong candidate, well done. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clean work and and something even better. --Ermell (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. Well done. --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 22:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 18:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's manipulated ("remove contrail and person") and doesn't show the reality, which in my opinion should not happen in an encyclopedia project. I am shocked that this is exactly what has been asked of by some here. --Stepro (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info What Commons is not: "Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia". The guidelines at the top of COM:FPC also state: Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.

Concerning the allegation of "manipulation", I wonder what is manipulation in photography. Is a long exposure manipulation of the reality, for example? Or focus stacking, light painting, etc?

I also wonder what is the most faithful representation of this place: with or without the visitor? A walker is not a permanent statue.

A very large amount of architecture photos are modified in post-process, because the Image guidelines require such transformations, for example walls should be vertical (we call that Perspective correction). But any post-treatment (light adjustment, dust spot removals, HDR composition, and so on), is manipulation.

Apart from that, note that even photomontages are perfectly acceptable at FPC (and at Wikipedia too) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call it as you want. A fake is a fake. And it's not the failt of the photographer, but of those, who expect a postcard idyll instead of reality. Yes, Commons is not Wikipedia. But it's also not Fakistan. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, call it as you want too.

Had a glance at your uploads. Not postcard idyll indeed, but many of them could be improved (horizontality for example). Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that mobile and fleeting elements are part of the reality of a place. If they are important to you or someone else while searching for an realistic image of this place, an other version is even offered here, where all those things are there (see file description). --Milseburg (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you wrote: "I don't think that mobile and fleeting elements are part of the reality of a place."

Above you wrote: "It is difficult to find this popular place without people."

So what is the reality? This popular place with people or without? In my opinion in reality there are people as contrails as well, because people walking around there and planes flying over there.

I'm really sorry to have this discussion here, maybe there is a better place. I think your photo is great and for sure a FP, but I think the demandings to manipulate it to become FP are absolutaly wrong. Stepro (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support having a greater degree of realism here, but I'm not letting it affect my vote. I think it's fine that you are voting against a feature on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Stepro and Marcus Cyron: Neither the contrail nor the person are permanently seen at this spot, that means removing them is no fake. It's common practice here, and I don't see any ethical issues. Regards --A.Savin 14:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany