Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpg

File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 16:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Regretfully. It's a big wow, but something went wrong (in post process?) with all those blue dots in the black areas (I get the same when I do exposure blending with improper versions of enblend, but I'd be surprised you have a similar pipeline). A bit noisy in shadow parts as well. - Benh (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for your review. I'll fix it this weekend. --XRay ^talk 17:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Fixed Sorry for the first image. I've rebuild the image. And it's better now - and more naturally. --XRay ^talk 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to nitpick but it now looks underexposed :/ (I don't think you need my help, but if, like me, you use enfuse, go with the openmp version which doesn't render these blue dots for some reason.) - Benh (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think the image is underexposed. It was nearly midnight. The first one was overexposed, sky to bright, buildings to bright. The buildings in the front are not illuminated. BTW: I'm working with Photomatix. The first image was made as HDRI, tone-mapped. This one is much more naturally, made with exposure fusion. But I'll check the image again. May be better with +1/3 EV. Tomorrow. --XRay ^talk 19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yup you know better, and it's a photographer's choice to render things more realistically or to "alter" things a bit (brightening per my suggestion). As for me, I really like the first version. Cancelling my oppose. - Benh (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Wonderful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - To me, this is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 22:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I was actually ready to oppose until I opened the pic on full screen --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Lmbuga (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Excellent simplicity of composition. Diliff (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Pugilist (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support − Meiræ 15:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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