Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Renaissances houses in Zamość.JPG

File:Renaissances houses in Zamość.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2010 at 12:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to recover an underexposed image here. The result is not too bad, but had you done a proper exposure to begin with you might have been able to lift the shadows a bit. For such a subject I would expect the exposure to be a bit more balanced and have the photographer do a bit of extra work by doing exposure blending for example. --Dschwen (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... in my opinion this version is pretty godd --Pudelek (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is good, but the sharpness-size-crispness (considered as a whole) is not sufficient imho for a FP. Maybe the lighting was too harsh or, as Dschwen stated, the exposure slightly off -- I'm not the one to tell. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI or VI .. yes, but FP? The information content is undisputed but for FP it looks to usual (technical and compositionalwise) for my taste. Worth watching, anyway.  Richard  [®]  16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Richard. —kallerna™ 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jak nie jak tak? :-)Albertus teolog (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO not special enough for FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]