Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 15:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This facade is flat, round windows are fakes, it is just a trompe l'oeil painting, as a restoration work. Emperor's Courtyard of the Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. And the man in the archway is perfectly posed. Or is he fake too? :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a good idea ! I'll think of it next time ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition with harmony feels :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking shot. --Baresi F (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! I should have had this idea myself and already a long time ago. Yet I didn't. Good work, Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Martin Falbisoner. That's because I was a tourist, with a "new eye". I'm fan of pictures of Paris by non Parisians: they see some things I've never seen before ! Anyway: Es lebe München !--Jebulon (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the quality I'd wish for a building photo. Missing sharpness; artefacts. Not very much wow for me, so I'd have abstained if it at least was a real QI. --A.Savin 21:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - I agree the image isn't as sharp as we might want and we have lots of megapixel stitched architecture images that show greater detail than this. But unlike QI, FP is judged for wow and artistic qualities which can mitigate against technical issues. When I saw this picture I went wow, both for the effect of the subject itself and also the pose of the man in the archway. It makes a great picture overall. This is the heart of FP, not pixel peeping. But everyone sets their thresholds and balances at different levels so I can accept some think the technical deficiencies (whether sharpness or noise) are too much. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - About sharpness: please remember this is not "architecture", but "painting". What you see is a flat wall, one cannot compare with any other facade. The painted lines are not as "pin" if it was a real relief (on purpose IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate that, and studied the real bits too. There is some grain/noise that removes sharpness -- not sure if due to processing like Tuxyo suggests. But ultimately I guess we are looking a raw captured pixels rather than a downsized image, and it is rarely perfect at that level. Maybe you should try your hand at stitched panorama! -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think I'm able ! Actually I don't know how to do. But since a few day, I work with some collaborators who know how to do, and I'll ask them (they make professional interactive panorama pictures ! You point at a spot, and you have a close-up !). I'll see what kind of softwares they use.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (weak) I also like the innovative composition as said by other reviews. But imho the problem of the photo is the bad light. It looks for me as if you extremely pushed the shadow parts of the building which lead to some unfavorable noise at the facade. Probably you just excluded the sky because it had been burnt out due to back light. For a photo with a strong accentuation on the structure of the facade it is not crisp enough. --Tuxyso (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "excluded the sky because it had been burnt out due to back light": well possible; see this small burnt area behind the arch. --A.Savin 05:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing is burnt, see histogram.--Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow imo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure some people actually know what Trompe-l'œil means Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very easy to solve as there's an useful, albeit only little known project called Wikipedia: Trompe l'oeil ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And we have many subcategories of Category:Trompe l'oeil...--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!!!! Today isn't April Fools' Day!!! :P (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The man is a plus and makes it different. --Kadellar (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting picture, but strong and visible artefacts and noise --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 11:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects