Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fontana del Moro Roma

Fontana del Moro Roma

 * Reason:Very high technical standard: great composition, lighting and focus, good illustration of its subject and high resolution. Breathtaking photograph I expected to already be featured when I clicked the image link. Currently only on the Bernini page, but deserves to be included in other articles.
 * Articles this image appears in:Gian Lorenzo Bernini
 * Creator:Commons user Jensens


 * Support as nominator --[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I get no sense of scale from this. I rather suspect this may be because some of the blur was added post hoc. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the composition is not so good, and the lighting isn't equal. I also agree that there is artificial blurring to it, when the aperture should do it itself.  Zoo Fari  22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose manifest manipulation. The blur was clearly added in post processing. You can see the blurred out streams of water coming from some of the spouts. Also, as PLM says, the blur eliminates any sense of scale. Also looks tilted. de Bivort 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why tilt shifting or messing with the sense of scale disqualify this as a featured picture? IMO that's what makes it a great image. I also see no evidence of artificial blurring. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well FP is for high quality images, not justthe beautiness. And if zoomed close, the sharpeness of the artificial blurring is visible.  Zoo Fari  23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I assume the fountain is larger than the 12 inches across that it looks here. This is a failure of encyclopedic value. de Bivort 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the size, I was assuming the figures could fit my palm?  Zoo Fari  02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose Blur aside, the image is tilted Richard Bartz (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Highly reproducible images such as this should have better lighting. Cacophony (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - artificial blur fails. Also at full res it's easy to see how poorly the image was cut out - there are corners all over the place where the wrong bit has been selected, or the magic wand tool hasn't been able to deal with a tight angle e.g. under the elbows of the leftmost figure, the top edge of the leftmost crescent pool on the top level, the curve of the back of the leftmost figure (which has been cut out with three straight lines ≠ a curve), the the right of the right index finger of the central character, between his left leg and the kneeling foreground figure and between his legs, and the areas around the two bollard-shaped brown objects (lamps) at right of the image. Even if the selection was done properly, the effect is overcooked, not a lens-style aperture blur and leads to perceptual problems of scale. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and I call WP:SNOW. With the processing, it looks like a miniature model of the fountain (or perhaps the buildings in the background were moving).  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Artificial blur is distracting. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently Wikipedians need to read up on the artistic merits of tilt shift photography. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it's not tilt-shifted - it's badly artificially blurred to look tilt-shifted. I like tilt-shifted images, however I don't think that this poorly Photoshopped example meets the FP technical criteria. If this was taken with a true tilt-shift lens, it would stand a far better chance of being voted in. These are some examples of artificially tilt-shifted images that do it well: Oregon State Beavers Tilt-Shift Miniature Greg Keene.jpg, Train tilt shift.jpg, Jodhpur tilt shift.jpg. I even think that the original shot of this, without any addition or blur or other postprocessing, would stand a better chance than this version, since it's a sharp photo and a nice scene with historical value. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally like the blur, it isolates the subject. But the problems pointed out break it. Probably difficult to fake without a real TS-E lens. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Adds value to an article, but manifest manipulation. - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ ΞΞΞ_         .   --  19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

--wadester16 | Talk→ 18:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)