Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Breakers Newport.jpg

The Breakers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 23:25:14 (UTC)

Original - The Breakers, the summer home of Cornelius Vanderbilt II, located in Newport, Rhode Island, United States. It was built in 1893, added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971, and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1994.

Reason: The Breakers is an historically significant mansion originally used as a summer home by the Vanderbilt family; it is currently a tourist attraction in Newport and the most famous mansion along its cliff walk. This building is the quintessential American gilded age home. This photo shows some of the great architecture in the 'summer home' while minimizing intrusion of people. This is the rear façade of the building; the Atlantic Ocean is to my 4 or 5 o'clock.
Articles in which this image appears: The Breakers, Rhode Island, Mansion, Vanderbilt family, Vanderbilt houses, Newport, Rhode Island, National Register of Historic Places listings in Newport County, Rhode Island, List of National Historic Landmarks in Rhode Island, Gilded Age, Template:Newport Mansions
FP category for this image: Places/Architecture
Creator: UpstateNYer (talk · contribs) (self nom)

Support as nominator --upstate NYer 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be quite oversaturated. Jujutacular ^talk 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? I never played with the saturation. And if you start desaturating, you lose the great color of the stone. Propose an edit, maybe? upstate NYer 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stone seems to be a different color in this other image of yours, and here the grass seems ridiculously green. Jujutacular ^talk 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other photo is in shadow; the sun shines on the back façade (shown here). As for the grass, agree to disagree? upstate NYer 00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It meets all the criteria in my opinion. Illustrates the subject about as well as could be done, good lighting, sufficiently sharp. I don't find it to be over-saturated. Cacophony (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. There are sharpening halos in a lot of places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per King of - I don't like the light halos around the entire roof... gazhiley.co.uk 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way over processed. Completely over saturated. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I don't find it particularly oversaturated, but does seem somewhat oversharpened. Certainly nice at smaller sizes. To me, this is classic example of why bigger isn't always better... --jjron (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not over saturated in my view (on a calibrated display). Per jjron. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much contrast then? I'm no expert, but the colours don't look realistic. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are realistic. I made no post-processing efforts other than correcting distortion. upstate NYer 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that the contrast on your camera was set on "hard" for this photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit much contrast, and the white balance is a bit blue I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I have to agree that it's too contrasty, and the white balance seems a bit blue as well. Time3000 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]