Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Street view of Prague.jpg

File:Street view of Prague.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 20:20:03

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this scene, and quality is good --ianaré (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ianaré--Mbz1 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you tried a perspective corrected version? --S23678 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @S23678: Well seen it! I've uploaded a perspective corrected version. Cheers! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bit noisy on some areas, but I like the mood of this photo. —kallerna™ 07:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like it, but it should be sharper and without that cloudy spot in the middle. Rocket000 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness + aberrant lines on the right side --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shaon82 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice composition but the geometric distortion doesn't add to it. There is also some obvious chromatic noise. But I can't see the "aberrant lines" (Richard Bartz) and "cloudy spot in the middle" (Rocket000) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cloudy spot I was referring to is located at the rear of the yellow car and in front of the green building. Rocket000 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition --Zakharii 11:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a snapshot --Avala (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What senseless comment!!! Can you point me where in the evaluation criteria "just a snapshot" is used to oppose a nomination? Maybe you should learn with the other opposers here how to do an opposition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should think before you put something like this on FPC and before you make personal insults :) --Avala (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you should read the FPC guidelines. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you should accept the opinion of other people and not attack them. Goodbye.--Avala (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've accepted all the other opposers' opinions here that came with reasonable reasons to oppose this photo. "Just a snapshot" is rather void for me. So long too Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Basically there is nothing great about this image. The most annoying thing is that smudge over the yellow car but it is also very very blurry - you can't even see the details in the nearest object let alone those further away (I can't even read the big text on the green building). Vertical lines are going in many directions, some buildings seem to be falling over. What is supposed to be clear white is actually a bit purple like clouds and the nearest car. The third car is almost completely in the dark but also the whole street is in the dark and it is supposed to be the main subject. Pavement is all blurry and there are some green spots all over. And you can't fix any of this other than going out and taking a new photo so there was no point in giving a detailed explanation of why did I oppose your touristy quick snapshot.--Avala (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Much better opposition arguments. Thanks for your time! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm and the perspective? Come on, I have plenty of pictures like this one and none is FP (yet ;-) ) --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vertical lines need perspective correction. -- MJJR (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sometimes i think we spend a little too much time playing with the ditigal photo-editing crap here; not everything needs "perspective correction". sometimes the lines of perspective are less than perfect; sometimes it's the image, sometimes it's the real world. i'm waiting for some fool on here to suggest that we "perspective correct" the leaning tower of pisa... :P (mind you, it would make a fun comparison shot... ) ha Lx 121 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's a very bad comparison considering that these buildings don't lean in real life while the tower of Pisa does. More realism is exactly what one would achieve by perspective correcting this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the orientation of the buildings to the road, internal to the image, is pretty clear; they don't always need to be neatly vertical/horizontal in the orientation/framing of the pic. that's not real world perspective, that's stylization, especially if it alters the original image's contents. besides, there are plenty of instances on here where we over-correct images to make them "prettier". DO NOT get me started on the subject of taking 2 page art prints, which were originally designed as 2 page art prints, & removing the centre crease line, or making dubious colour corrections... we had one as a potd not too long ago :P Lx 121 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]