Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Bangalore.jpg

Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Bangalore

 * Reason:Good quality, lighting, resolution(>11mp) and EV. We have very few Indian related FPs. Already featured on commons without any opposition. To view using Dschwen's handy ZoomViewer
 * Articles in which this image appears:Dharmaraya Swamy Temple, Bangalore Karaga, Hindu temple, List of Hindu temples in India
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency :) -Elekhh (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs counterclockwise rotation. Durova  412 05:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the exposure boosted (I didn't check the rotation thing). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it requires a clockwise rotation of 0.34 degrees. I have the edit ready awaiting your confirmation. NS, exposure boosting is overexposing some of the parts. --Muhammad (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If by overexposing you mean causing clipping, then use curves rather than levels. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit1 Uploaded OK? --Muhammad (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh?! The edit is more tilted than the original. I don't see an improvement. Am I missing something? --Dschwen 14:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a complex one. There seems to be little consistency in the vertical (eg the seam down the middle of the building) and horizontal lines. My guess is that it is the building that isn't quite perfectly straight, but it's hard to know for sure. The horizontal lines seem tilted counter-clockwise in the original and are largely corrected in the edit (barring structural issues), so I'd say it's an improvement. Did you actually measure the tilt or was it just an impression? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the horizontals right above doorframe level. Taking the vertical at the center as a reference is a bit dangerous, as the building looks recessed backwwards the further up you go. I believe a slight off center position of the photographer would distort that vertical much more than it would distort the horizontal. And well, I checked, because the edit now looks tilted to me :-) --Dschwen 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, although if the photo was taken from an off-centre position, the vertical lines would remain vertical. It's the horizontal lines that would tilt, an extreme example being this. But as you say, there aren't any reliable vertical lines due to the recession of the building. Yes, the edit looks slightly tilted, but the horizontal lines are straighter. It's good enough for me anyway! &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Thank you.  Durova  412 19:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Interesting and underrepresented architectural style, with good detail. Edit 1 improves the tilt and brightness. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation above --Muhammad (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support E1 Wonderful Indian architecture. If there is any tilt it is barely discernible and you may notice (or imagine) it only when comparing it with the original.  Fletcher (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Has a nice, National Geographic-like look to it that will give Wikipedia’s Main Page a worldly affect for a day. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either, prefer edit 1. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)