Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:বায়তুল মোকাররম.jpg

File:বায়তুল মোকাররম.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2017 at 08:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:বায়তুল মোকাররম.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:বায়তুল মোকাররম.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Bangladesh
•  Info created & uploaded by Jubair1985 - nominated by Selbymay (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) This picture won the third prize for WLM in Bangladesh. As a jury member, it was my favorite. The soft light on the arches create a beautiful grey and white perspective well contrasted with the black silhouette of the man sat on the floor.
•  Support -- Selbymay (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree that this is a great photo but could you please remove/clean up the red CA lines around the lit openings. --cart-Talk 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I won't edit it. As it's an awarded picture, and already a QI. --Selbymay (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. The CA should have been noticed at QIC but like many other with that, it slipped through. If you don't want edit this version, you could fix it and upload it as a derivative of the original. Regretfully, I will  Oppose this version. Sorry. --cart-Talk 15:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Pretty good composition, but in my opinion not good enough for weigh up for the CA and deteriorating quality on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good composition but cannot support as per W.carter. Its very easy to remove CA. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I did some fixing of the file (CA removal, fix perspective, NR, sharpness, contrast) just to see what it could look like and that version is here if it could be of interest: File:বায়তুল মোকাররম-processed.jpg. --cart-Talk 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Striking composition in my opinion - Benh (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture. Outstanding composition and tonality; minor technical imperfections can be easily removed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It is a lovely picture, well composed and balances, pleasant to look at. Photography is not made of technial perfection, that is related with geometry. And photogrphy must not be judged with technicalities, Straight lines etc are important but cannot be the only and most important in judging a photograph. Technicality doesnt match photography which is a kind of art.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment To cart, Peulle, Daniel Case, Sanjay Acharya, I have some difficulties to understand your opposition based only on such minor flaws as CA (not even mentioned in FP guidelines). Featured Pictures doesn't have to be Super-QI. It's normal that we have some expectations of quality here but the first one there should be on the artistic value not on the technical. If you can't appreciate such images without pointing out the technical imperfections, I guess you suffer a lot when you visit photo exhibitions & festivals. For me, as for a few I hope, the beauty and the magic of photography doesn't reside in absolute perfection. --Selbymay (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Selbymay, these "Should we accept CA in FPs"-discussions flare up in nominations and on the FPC talk page from time to time, leaving none the wiser (example). Removing CA and other minor technical imperfections are not written in the image guidelines or rules of FP quality criteria but such corrections have been general practice / unwritten rule as long as I have been active here on Commons. The "no-CA-rule" was in fact the first rule I learned here. The written rules/guidelines have not been altered in a long time and does therefore not include many of the things that are quite easy to correct with programs and all these days. I guess the reasoning goes that if it's easy to fix something, why shouldn't we fix it so that FPs are as good as they can possibly get. We DO appreciate the artistic value in images and are not pained when looking at exhibitions. I have an equal difficulty in understanding why you are so opposed to make minor easy improvements in a photo to make it as good as possible, like any artist putting the finishing touches on a work of art before an exhibition. If you want to make an effort to change how photos are to be judged here you are very welcome to start a discussion about it on the FPC talk page. Who knows, maybe we will reach a conclusion this time... --cart-Talk 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• cart Contributing on commons for ten years (& 3 days now :) I know how this kind of debate is recurrent and how the consensus is hard to find but I think it would be sad in the present context of technical overbid to feature only the top of QI. --Selbymay (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The CA is very minor and does not bother me. Of course I would support an alternative copy with the CA removed, provided this didn't harm the image quality. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Frank Schulenburg. --Laitche (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, however I think that the name should be changed into English words as it is almost impossible to type for foreigners. -- Pofka (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this is a silly remark. An image from Bangladesh is quite rightfully named in Bengali. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose as opposition, i find it much better in BW option, with some croping. Also seems tilted or need some PD. --Mile (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- anjaz (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin -- Thennicke (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Striking composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, striking composition but the CAs (especially at the lower left) are too much --Llez (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Bangladesh