Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006.jpg

Champ de Mars

 * Reason:Spectacular view and very well taken. The gradation between top down perspective and side on perspective is a bit odd, but IMO doesn't detract from this fine image
 * Articles this image appears in:Eiffel Tower and Champ de Mars
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator Fir0002 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The original needs to be cropped at the bottom (un electable this way) Oppose original. The edits seem to have done that, but they also made the image bluer. Care to comment on what you edited instead of just putting two new images there? It would help. --Dschwen 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit1. Downsampleed to far, oversharpened, overcontrasted. edit2 does a helpful rotation but the contrast enhancement makes it unnatural looking too Weak oppose edit2. --Dschwen 13:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose edit3. If a nomination needs this many edits maybe PPR would be a better place. I'd probably weak support a slightly rotated original with the black pano-void cropped off though. --Dschwen 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would be Edit4 ;-). BTW, what's an Alternative and what's an Edit? People are voting on edits, but I only see alternatives. Why aren't these being named according to convention? An Edit is a modification of the original, an Alternative is a different, but similar, picture. I assume these are really all edits, but none have been called that. --jjron (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - my mistake --Fir0002 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops, that was pretty sloppy editing on my behalf. Never noticed that before. The issue of warm vs cool is a difficult one. On one hand, I know that from being there at the time, there was a slightly warm tinge due to the atmospheric pollution (I'm yet to see Paris on a crisp clear day!), but you can simulate a slightly clearer day by cooling the colour balance which is what has happened in the edits. To what degree do we require absolute commitment to the view on that particular day? I admit that the edits are more aesthetically pleasing without significantly losing accuracy of the subject matter. My vote is a Weak support edit 2, but its not one of my most impressive photos. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1, I think it's very impressive. I also prefer the what you call "overcontrasted" look of that version. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I've tried to "remove" the fog, but perhaps it looks somewhat unatural. → Aza Toth 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support orig I don't see why this is getting tweaked with so much, the image is great. de Bivort 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The main thing is that I did a poor job of cropping the bottom of the frame and there is some leftover blackness from the stitch. ;-) Other than that, its all much of a muchness really. Someone should (or me when I get the chance) just overwrite the existing image with one that crops a few pixels height off the bottom but otherwise leave it alone. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a cropped version but I couldn't overwrite the original directly because it lives on Commons. de Bivort 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original and Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2 and three ("no fog"). —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not specified a reason for your opposes, which is required. thegreen J      Are you green?  21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. I haven't. “All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed.” Should(!) means: Nothing required, not a must. Just an advice, nothing more. Am I right? —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. :) This is a wiki, not a dictatorship, so no one will ever "force" you to write something. It is, however, considered poor etiquette to oppose and not provide a rationale. Such votes will, furthermore, bear less weight when it comes to closing the nomination. Chris.B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support edit 1 I like edit one the best, I agree with AzaToth, some fog is needed to make the pictures look good, but too much fog doesn't help the picture either. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s  ( Merry Christmas! ) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. It looks the best, revolutionary picture indeed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)