Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Notre-Dame de Montreal Basilica Jan 2006 edit.jpg

Image:Notre-Dame de Montreal Basilica Jan 2006 edit.jpg featured (original = right)

description

• Nominate and support --David.Monniaux 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support excellent quality and no noise. Fantastic! ♦ Pabix ℹ 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support edit LoopZilla 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support original LoopZilla 10:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the non-edited version --Piolinfax 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- évident Tatoute 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support original version (listed second),  Oppose edit. I thought self-nomination is used when you nomitate a picture you have contibuted yourself? --Wikimol 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(Woops - I copied and pasted and didn't even check whether I copied the "self" template or not!) David.Monniaux 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry Wikimol but the edit version is really splendid. no? Tatoute 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is lenghty discussion about it at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica. If you want my opinion, the edit does no good to both the atmosphere and realism of the photo ...obviously I would support it if it was the only version. You may say I have double standard - which is absolutely true. When voting in FPC I usualy compare the candidate with what else is availiable on the subject. (Which is also why I have different demands on a FPC eg. of the Statue of Liberty and FPC of a volcanic eruption) --Wikimol 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

•  Support Fantastic! I like the edited/left version more than the original norro 01:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the edited version the original version -- It's true churchs are often dark, and the edited version is too bright. -- YolanC 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support any of the two --Briseis 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the edited version --SehLax 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support left one (edited) Tbc 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support either pfctdayelise 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support orignial version Calderwood 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support original version (listed second),  Oppose edit.--Dschwen 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Edit. Oppose original --fir0002 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Edit. -- Get_It (Talk) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the original only. I just want to add my two cents. I'm the original photographer of this image and I feel that the edit is inaccurate and doesn't express the same atmosphere that the original does. Sure, it appears prettier and more striking and to some lifts the dark shadows, but I don't think that is something we should mess with. There are some situations where a photo is obviously in need of alteration to recreate the aesthetics of being there, but as I was there and I KNOW the basilica was dark and selectively artificially lit at the front, and there WAS a stark contrast between the dark and light. The edit removes this contrast and at the expense of accuracy. Diliff 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the original version Kessa Ligerro 09:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support original version. Fantastic work, gratulation -- Godewind 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support (the edited) Hole sh.... --FML ^hi 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support fantastic work. Darkone 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the original. It captures more a serene feel when dark. enochlau (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support It's a really great picture. I personally would be in favour of the edited version, but because I'm in strong opposition to featuring two versions of the very same image I just trust the word of the author of the image. So please feature the original and  Oppose to the edited version. Andreas Tille 06:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support left one (right one is a bit dark) - MPF 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support non-edited version.... it requires the viewer to concentrate more to actually get all the details, but they are all there! And it looks more real, and still spectacular --Spundun 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the original version (right),  Oppose to the edited version. You must look at the original size. See the beautifull nuances of colors in the original which looks authentic. It's a church, not a laser performance. --wau 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Roger McLassus 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support / tsca ✉ 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support (the edited) --Boris23 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support edit,  Oppose original Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support both Mayamaxima 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support edited version -- Gorgo 18:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the original version only ,  Oppose edited : I'd like to respect the photographer's wish. -- Fabien1309 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support both versions --Hein 08:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
•  Support both versions, prefer original. I neither think pictures of churches always have to be dark because some churches are (some swans are black, too!), nor do I object to editing (the edited version looks good, too). As for arguments about the photographer's wishes, has he been notified? I left a msg on his talk, just in case. Perhaps he likes the edited version. - Samsara 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Result for both: 11 support, 0 oppose
Result for original (right): 14 support, 1 oppose
Result for edited (left): 11 support, 3 oppose
→ featured (original) Calderwood 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)