Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Melk Abbey

Melk Abbey
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2023  at 09:39:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution. Good composition.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Melk Abbey, 1736 in architecture, Monastery
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Thomas Ledl


 * Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)\
 * Comment - Between the various roofs below the abbey, I wonder if there is a better angle available. More elevation would definitely help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose now that I have confirmation that better angles are possible. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support --Wow (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Vinícius O. (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment– There is a higher resolution photo passing at Commons nom: . It doesn't have the foreground roof distraction. Bammesk (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banmesk, would support the other photo if it were nominated. MER-C 09:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – I may be in the minority here, but in spite of the partial obstruction by the roofs at the lower right, I actually prefer this photo to the alternative mentioned by Bammesk and endorsed by MER-C above, because this one has significantly more EV. The oblique view gives a much better sense of the building than a simple straight-on picture of the facade, which gives no hint of the shape and size of the structure behind it. Ideally, I'd like to see an image that combines an unobstructed oblique view without the distracting foreground roofs (like this one: File:Melk - Stift (2).JPG) with a greater resolution and sharpness than that photo provides. But given the choice, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, I feel strongly that a slightly flawed oblique view is better than a spectacular frontal view, in spite of the latter's enormous pixel count. Choliamb (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and definitely a reason to keep this image in the article. I know that, when I was still doing photography, I'd try and get multiple images and angles for exactly that reason. If the rooftops weren't as intrusive, I might even agree with you... but in this case, it feels as though you'd want to get three or four meters up to get the best image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I share your reservations about this photo, which is why I offered my comment as a comment rather than a support vote. The problem, as this photo from further away makes clear, is that if you back up enough to get the roofs out of the way, you're likely to end up in the river. What is really needed, as you say, is an extra few meters of height. But the image I linked to in my original comment (File:Melk - Stift (2).JPG, also taken from across the river) shows that it is in fact possible to get a photo that avoids the roofs and still conveys more information than a strictly frontal view. If I were looking for a photograph to use in the classroom, that's the one I would probably choose. And although it seems a little soft when you look at it at full resolution, I would be more likely to support it for FP than the current candidate (or than the frontal view, which is admittedly spectacular on its own terms). Choliamb (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 13:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)