Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Alhambra2001.jpg

Alhambra2001.jpg

Original

Edit 1 by Fir0002

Edit 2. Perhaps this sky has more 'wow'?

Reason: Excellent image - well done. Sharp, good exposure, encyclopedical relevant.

Articles this image appears in

Creator

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is completely blown and there is an odd gray border along the top of the image. CillaИ ♦ XC 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 too. Also good. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've now voted twice. It's better to vote "Support both" in one place so that the closer counts your support once, not twice. --Malachirality (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't edit 1 represent overediting of an image? _→AzaToth 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, because the actual subject remains unchanged. That is now has clouds is pretty irrelevant to subject of the picture. --Fir0002 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The perspective on the clouds is wrong, seeing the very tops of cumulus columns as we do in the edit would put the base on the ground, they look fake. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bear in mind cumulus clouds often do look like they're touching the ground so the perspective is fine. In fact the image I got those clouds from had a hillside just below where the roofline is. Not all cumulus clouds make thundering columns in the sky ;) See also Image:Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006 edit3.jpg which has a cumulus cloud peaking from behind the roofline - taking at a lower angle (as this image seems to be) there'd be even more clouds. Another example is this: Image:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg which looks like the cumulus will touch the ground. So I'm 99.25% :) confident that the cumulus in this cloud is possible. And you've always got Edit 2 if you want something more realistic! ;-) --Fir0002 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL (and Edit2's picking up a bit of support).. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still on the fence about the edit. I agree rationally with Fir that the focus is on the building, not the sky - but emotionally, I cannot get past the addition of the sky, and it's hard for me not to see flaws in the addition of the sky or otherwise even focus on the rest of the image. de Bivort 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 @Fir0002, so did you recover clouds from a RAW file or something or just paste random ones in? Tokugawapants (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Random clouds --Fir0002 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, sorry, nothing strikes me as so wow to allow for that "smallish" size. --gren グレン 13:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you write the vote that you intended? -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I just ended up canceling out my own 'vote'... but, thanks for pointing that out, I had meant oppose :| --gren グレン 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 ...and LOL on edit 2 overexposed sky, and would prefer symmetry in an architecture shot like this. The edit and the size are also small concerns. --Malachirality (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all A blown sky is a blow sky. The perspective on the clouds is wrong as we are seeing the tops of cumulus columns where we shouldn't be able to. Even if the sky job was perfect (it isn't) I would still have trouble offering my support. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 - sundogs at the acropolis!? wow! Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks brilliant now! :-) --Fir0002 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I must say that edit 1 is the best, but the clouds look fake. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about edit 2. I didn't know the acropolis was in southwestern Minnesota, hehe ;) Axda0002 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know that the acropolis was located in southern spain. This is the Palace of Charles V. NOT the acropolis. ; ) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Blown sky. I am not willing to consider the faked edits in any way. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]