Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg

File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2015 at 14:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg

•  Info created by Ralf Roleček - uploaded by Ralf Roleček - nominated by Ralf Roleček
•  Support -- Ralf Roleček 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image is currently ineligible for FP per rules due to lack of appropriate licence. Please add e.g. FAL/CC licence. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Info FAL added. --Ralf Roleček 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support I wish it were bigger/more detailed. I like the diagonal transition and the light hitting the side of the buildings. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as colin.--Hubertl (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 06:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose top-left part overexposed + bad light. Again a BW-image because the quality of the color image was too bad ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alchemist-hp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Both arguments of alchemist-hp I can't follow.
• (1) A picture isn't excellent automatically if there is light from behind as well as a picture isn't bad if we have back-lighting. I see neither a aesthetic problem with the bright corner nor in information content. The important center of Berlin is good captured and the atmosphere of this image is winning compared to a "normal" birds-eye-view. So what is really here the problem of this part of the picture?
• (2) It is the decision of the photographer if he nominates colour images or an image in bw. The contrast is very good, especially for a birds eye view from the plane. I can't remember that FPC would have restriction for black-white-images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but this is absolutely not mine! Sorry for this hard words, but this is digitally trash for me.

because if I read the image description:

   Dieses Bild wurde digital nachbearbeitet. Folgende Änderungen wurden vorgenommen:
   RAW-Entwicklung in Adobe Camera RAW
   Konvertierung in cmyk, dort extreme kanalgetrennte Tonwertkorrektur
   Rückkonvertierung RGB
   Entrauschen mit Dfine 2
   S/W- Umwandlung mit Silver Efex Pro 2 (90% Deckung)
   Schärfung mit Sharpener Pro 3
   Skalierung auf genau 50% mit PhotoZoom Pro 5; Methode S-Spline Max

Nice, but what is true at this image? Perhaps I do have some more software packages for additional reworking ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alchemist-hp: It's absolutely no problem for me if our opinions are not equal. This is not hard because true. This image has a high aesthetic and information value. And the technical development is for me a reason for it and not against. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Its all simply Photoshop. --Ralf Roleček 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support The effect is very nice--Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Light and also a bit noisy. -- -donald- (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Doesn't work for me, as per others. Yann (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting idea, but stumbles in the execution. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)