Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Johannis Lüneburg1.jpg

File:St. Johannis Lüneburg1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 12:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but not much wow otherwise and boring centered composition. - Benh (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I still like it (remembering voting for this on Valued Images on WP), great mood, lighting, detail and I don't find it boring. I'm not saying it's extraordinary, but I do like it. One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Please do not get offended with the comment but a FP should be really extraordinary (when compared to other pictures). Also, we would expect a better reason for supporting, other than liking it (like in Facebook). Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can understand your opinion, but I kind of also think it would make a good POTD. I don't know, it just seems to me like most non-digitally edited or retouched photos are probably basically gonna be similar to this. Can you maybe provide me an example link to something you think is more feature-worthy?-- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, what about this one? Or this one? Or even this one? Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder why "boring" and "nothing extraordinary" should be more solid arguments then "I like it". Sounds very overbearing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is because, by default, a picture comes here as non-promoted... Only extraordinary images should, by definiton of FP, receive the seal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You did not answered my question well. But I have already seen that you put other opinions beneath yours. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice quality and correct picture. But nothing extraordinary justifying the FP seal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the framing is really smart, well emphasising the proportions of the subject. What makes it neutral is the emptiness in the foreground. --ELEKHH^T 01:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Architecture is corresponding always with his surrounding. Thus I also wanted to show. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure if I understand your comment, but I wasn't saying that you shouldn't have included the square. What I meant was that if there would have been some people in the square closer to the camera the image would have been more dynamic/lively. --ELEKHH^T 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be hard to do in Germany. Identifiable people would have to be censored because of personal rights (Recht am eigenen Bild, eng. "Right on picture from yourself"). Thus it is the best solution to not have people in front of such an motive. There are exceptions inside this law, but this would not apply in this case. --Niabot (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am unfortunately very aware of that, I just had a long fight with a German publisher for having included images of identifiable people in a book. The problem is not insurmountable though: people do not need to face the camera, or can be blurred (choosing long time exposure, or graphic editing.) --ELEKHH^T 23:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Bluring people seldomly has an good effect on pictures under bright daylight conditions. Also it is nearly impossible to such a shot with long time exposure. As an German citizen that lives close to Lüneburg i would call this a typical scenario. Large crowds are seldom seen in such places at the given time. Its more a pro to illustrate this fact. --Niabot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings around the church, the surface and the cross on the top of the church indicate an overexposed image. Also, given the size, it should capture better the details around the clock on the church.--Snaevar (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please specify: where is the image overexposured and where are missing details in this nearly 30 MP image? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You should have scaled it down, so no one would notice that it is "unsharp". As usual people don't think about other images and how they would look at stretched out at same resolution. --Niabot (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Downsampling a picture with the purpose of looking better is a childish thing to do, especially considering that Commons is repository of free media and we never know what use the images will be given. Fortunately most of the regular reviewers here know better than that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense? Thats exactly what i criticized. But some of our users don't have good faith and others don't have the eyes to see the that a unsharp picture with 30MP is as good as an sharp picture with 10MP, when downsampled to 10MP. But they vote as if it is an unsharp 10MP image. Now think again and stop stalking me or making wrong accusations. At least you could answer my other questions, if you don't have anything else to do. But i guess you are not able to do that, or no willing because of your wrong motives. --Niabot (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alves, Niabot meant it ironically, so you are both on the same page. Now you could hug and stop quarrelling... --ELEKHH^T 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I got it now. Sorry. Erasing the whole thing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure, sometimes an image is simply too large and whatever detail it would have seem to be diluted -> oversampling? Not talking about making an image smaller so flaws are less visible. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]