Kalasan
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2013 at 03:11:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and much better than the image it replaced (which had blown highlights). Unlike my earlier temple nom, this one has a fairly clear sky, possibly caused by the recent (minor) eruption of Merapi. I am including an ALT which has a wider angled view, though I prefer the one in the article now.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kalasan
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Chris Woodrich
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support, prefer ALT. The composition feels a bit cramped on the original in my opinion. Nice work overall! Jujutacular (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. At 100%, both images are lacking sharpness, particularly at the edges. I think it's a little below image quality standards that we expect from architectural photography. Also, just as a little nit-picky aside... I don't think the settings you used to take the photo helped. I noticed both images had a very tight aperture (f/14 and f/16) and both photos had a shutter speed of 1/250th so I'm assuming you had shutter priority (Tx) set at the time. If so, that is probably what caused the aperture issue - the shutter speed/ISO combination forced the stopped down aperture which will have increased softness in the image due to diffraction. I'm happy to explain more if you like. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support ALT I can only see the "softness" that is described above when completely zoomed into the photo. I do not believe it takes away from the image for a minor technical flaw. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Weak Opposeas per Diliff. It's quite blurry when zoomed in, but I do like the angle/composition. Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- To both opposes: I note your concerns (and thank you for them; I will try and find a way to improve quality) but I would argue that, at the minimum resolution for FP, this more than satisfies the sharpness criteria. Even at 4000 px wide (ALT) the blurriness is not very significant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support ALT --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support ALT - knowing the subject very well from personal experience, and the context, and having pored over 100 years of b&w renditions at various times, and all the small problems with capturing the subject, the alt is a better grasp of what is encountered in real life (hope they havent widened the highway on the other side too much) Diliff's comments should be taken into account very carefully for understanding further photographs of this type,( I had at least the pleasure during my time with this object with a pre-digital camera ), problem with photos at this distance and perspective, the main feature that comes out spectactularly in the 1960s and 1970s photos taken early in the am (you got to get up earlier for better shots :) ), the kala face above the south door misses out in the coloured version. I could expand further some of the issues of doing the prambanan area subject matter but it is not probably of direct relevance here. satusuro 00:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. I too love the angle and the subject, but the softness bothers me as well. I noted your reply above, but I'm not aware of any "sharpness criteria" other than "main subject is in focus"... and it's not. In fact, the image has the appearance of a soft glamour photo effect. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt like it. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support ALT Better Bellus Delphina talk 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Kalasan Temple from the north-east, 23 November 2013.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)