Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Humayun’s Tomb, Delhi, India.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 10:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Humayun's tomb is the tomb of the Mughal Emperor Humayun
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
  •  Info created, uploaded & nominated by Eatcha -- EATCHA (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- EATCHA (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oversaturated colours, too many details washed out, chromatic aberration etc.--Peulle (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Peulle and where is the EXIF. I wonder how this passed QI. --Cart (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry, the EXIF was deleted by the Image editor and I added the EXIF. EATCHA (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The very first version of this is actually not bad, but then you hit the "all in" button and overprocessed the image. Done properly, this could be very nice. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A good photo but not well processed. I would probably support if a number of things were corrected. First, the colours are way too saturated - the blues and greens are clearly too bright, and the colours on the building itself don't seem to accord with other pictures of the building, from a google search (too bright and saturated again). Second, there are quite a lot of artifacts at full resolution - interestingly, as Cart alludes to, these seem to be significantly less in the very first version of the picture. Finally, the shadowed leaves at the top left have a large amount of chromatic aberration on them. This can be corrected from RAW but given that they don't add anything to the composition and they're quite distracting, I might be tempted to clone them out completely. What I'd do with this picture is to take the first version, straighten it, clone out the leaves, and apply a significantly less aggressive increase to the saturation levels (maybe +5 in Photoshop). I can't guarantee the image would pass FP even then, but it would be a much better photo than it is now, and would well deserve its QI label. Sorry for the essay. Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There are now links to edited versions of this on my talk page, feel free to use them as you like. Perhaps if you upload one of them here, the FPX Yann added here might be removed. --Cart (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The edits improved this significantly, but the large shadows of other trees in the grass remained and now they distract from the main subject too strongly. – Lucas 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support now with all the edits this has become a stunning view with good lighting. My only culprit left would be the blurred sides. – Lucas 11:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - This is a very good effort, and I seriously considered voting for it, but though it's well-composed and good, I think the sides are not sharp enough, especially at this size, to merit an FP designation. But it's not that far from an FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I edited the image, the final results are shadows are removed, CAs fixed and it's no more Over-saturated. Thanks for your comments and specially to W.carter for his her help. EATCHA (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Even despite the technical issues or non-issues, I don't find this works compositionally as an FP (although I have no quarrel with it as a QI). The cloud on upper right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the image. It had a lot of potential from the start: nice angle, impressive subject, well composed. If you had access to the raw file, I'd like to see what lifting the shadows would do. But overall – for my taste at least – this is good enough for a featured picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC) P.S. I admire your patience and all the effort you put into this nomination, EATCHA[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Humayun’s_Tomb,_Delhi,_India.jpg&oldid=356826655"