Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Sebastián

San Sebastián

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 15:36:26 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV, already featured on Commons and 3 other 'pedias.
Articles in which this image appears: San Sebastián, Spain, Louis Emmanuel Rey
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Keta

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama, educational -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ Nice picture. A bit soft, esp. given the size, but good composition, lighting, etc. --jjron (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per jjron. The sky feels a little over-processed/too dark. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gives a fantastic impression of the area. A great photograph. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ -- I love it but the picture is oversaturated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Until the oversaturation is fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(strong) Oppose poor detais, heavily oversaturated, a lot of overexposed parts, posterized. --ka ʁs tn 08:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is Really oversaturated/overprocessed and artificial-looking. (Dark sky, sand a color that does not occur in nature, etc.) This probably could be fixed with some easy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to edit this? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've messed around with the contrast/saturation, but it never seems to be an improvement. Jujutacular ^talk 02:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, personally I think to 'fix' it (if you agree with the oppose reasons) you'd have to do so from the original/s. So, IMO, the closer needs to make the call based on the reasons given and the current version of the image. (Though I'm sure someone might prove me wrong ...). --jjron (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added alt. Any better? I could make it more saturated or less saturated by request.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bit of colour/contrast change about a quarter way across the image, possibly resulting from not locking in manual settings when it was taken leading to a change of exposure, or by different modifications being made to the images prior to stitching. I think that has been exacerbated by the edit. As it looks like (a) no one is going to actually close this as promoted based on the current votes, and (b) it's not going to be reprocessed off the originals (which as I said above is what would be needed to fix the various issues stated in a number of votes), in the interests of getting it closed I will shift to a Weak Oppose (if that's allowed these days; if not, change me back to support!). --jjron (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alt, thanks Mbz1. I don't particularly see the color change mentioned by jjron. Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a sharp colour change in the sea (I presume due to cloud reflections), but not in the sky. --Avenue (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but only due to the color change. It's really obvious to me and distracting from what would otherwise be a very good photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]