Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panorama of Porto

Panorama of Porto

Edit 1 by Fir0002. Lightened shadows, removed pink poles at water's edge

Edit 2 by Diliff. Alternative to those who do not like the unnecessary removal of content from the image. Lightened shadows only and left the two pink poles alone as I don't feel their removal was justified

This image appears in the article Porto. It was created by Olegivvit.

Those who haven't put a preference for an image please do so.Froggydarb 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - Olegivvit 17:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although the shadows on the boats on the left are a problem, the building-covered hills in the background easily make up for that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:54
Wholehearted support for edit 2. I'm a big fan of well executed panoramas and this is one of the best I've seen on wikipedia. Very nice framing (aside from the unfortunate cropping of the oars) and a beautiful city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making panoramas with moving water is tough, and this one is very nice -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for edit 1 Image appears somewhat blurry to me. I suppose this could just be me though considering that no one else has mentioned this. --Nebular110 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the thumbnail does look blurry (problem with MediaWiki's downscaling method), but the actual image is perfectly sharp. What a downer. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think it look blurry. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either, with preference for my edit. --Fir0002 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to use the "Edit <x>" format, you should refer to it by that number in your support too... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great shot, slight preference for the version without the pink poles, but don't think it's worth getting excited over. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Subtle enhancement of the original. Very good shot, well-balanced and detailed. — Vildricianus 10:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Pan-tastic! --Janke | Talk 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2- great panorama you cant even see the pink pole at normal size so leave it.
Support Edit 2 - TomStar81 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original (or if that doesn't get support, Diliff's edit. There's no need to remove items from the photograph which are there in real life. They don't hurt the image at all. I also don't see the need to edit it to begin with. Shadows are supposed to be dark. Why lighten them? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thats true, but shadows have a habit of appearing as a chunk of black in a photo due to the camera's inherent lack of dynamic range compared to the human eye. The goal of photography, particularly encylclopaedic photography, is to portray the subject as accurately as possible. Thats why I'm happy to support changes such as saturation and shadow enhancement but not removal or otherwise changes to the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Great panorama shot. Now all I need is a widescreen monitor! :P G.H e 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original first, then edit 2 - I was going to nominate this picture! Nice work! Afonso Silva 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Wonderful city and also this photo. - Darwinek 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Edit 2 Amazing panorama. Beautiful. Sotakeit 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002_edit2.jpg Raven4x4x 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]