Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hollywood sign

Hollywood sign
Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016  at 02:13:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Excellent quality and great EV for the section 'Location'
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hollywood sign, Hollywood, Jagged Little Pill
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
 * Creator:Der Wolf im Wald


 * Support as nominator – Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Not a scratch on the Vinewood sign, but it'll do...  gaz hiley  10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirm my support is for Orig As I like the framing of the Tower etc being included. More realistic of it's setting as it explains the fencing and objects on the peak of the hill behind the sign that seem to be just randomly there in the ALT. gaz hiley  10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but Prefer ALT - 79 single images? Daaaaaaaaaaamn. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I too would like to have ALT featured, but original is a tad better IMHO. In fact, I compared both before nominating and I have opted for the original. I think the picture may have been wrongly placed in the article, but the section 'Location' describes the background of the Sign, like the tower and those antennas. So I think I prefer original. Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lower left has a relatively large fuzzy (out of focus) area. That's strange for 79 images. What is that? Bammesk (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be understandable with a single exposure (I suspect that bluff is a fair bit closer than the rest of the scene) but I'd agree it's a bit odd when everything else is very sharp indeed. Amazing photo though. Prefer alt: crop compositionally but original has greater EV. - Wolftick (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks Nikhil for the nominatiuon! :-) The unsharp area on the left is out of focus because of the depth of field. I focused on the sign and took every image with this adjustment. So the result is like a one-shot with extreme aperture. I think the result appears more natural if you use the same focus setting in each of the 79 single images. The unsharp foreground is OK for me, because through that you get a depth effect and nothing important gets lost. Regards, Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ALT and Weak support original – per above. Bammesk (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT - The crop also got rid of power lines at lower right. --Janke | Talk 20:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support prefer "original", but the ALT is also OK for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Harsh colouring, and artificial appearance perhaps because it is stitched from many different images? I don't see the point of the crop which still includes acres of bushes. Between the two images, the original has the advantage of showing some context and also the same view as the 1970's one in the article. ProfDEH (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Yann (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above. No preference on which one. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT I think it's the case where cropping doesn't hurt. Brandmeistertalk  12:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * support alt. The cropping improves the original measurably. CountZ (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No preference on which version. I like the first for the entire scope of the hilltop being included, but likewise the alt is the classic crop of the sign itself. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The alternative image has more supports. (Added image to Places/Others.) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)