Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hillman Library, exterior.jpg

File:Hillman Library, exterior.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 19:14:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hillman Library, exterior.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hillman Library, exterior.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by User:dllu - uploaded by User:dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 19:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- dllu (t,c) 19:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Excellent job. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong support Some might say it's too dark. But I think that works in this image's favor, as it captures what people don't like about brutalism while remaining a striking, symmetrical image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral (Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)) Really good idea! The author has talent for seeing uncommon in common things... The photo is "nearly wow" for me. But at the same time this "uncommonnes" gives rise to some doubts: the view seems to be unusual, artificial; judging other photos of the library, the building on the photo became unrecognizable... (in whole, this isn't a problem, but also isn't especially desirable for Commons). The library is a rather heavy, ponderous building and here it looks a rather dynamic structure. On the one hand this dynamism is a godsend of the photographer, on the other hand... Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
•  Support as others. Well done, even in the dark areas. It would be even better than good, if you clone out the distracted person. --Hubertl 13:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose too dark for me. Have a lack of whites and blacks, and I would crop a little bit the bottom to remove handrail. I'm little bit without patience, so I edited the JPEG and uploaded as a alternative down below. -- RTA 10:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same for me. Too dark. -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as below, seems to be tilted very slightly. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think this photo is, so to say, pure art, a play on form, but not an architectural photo with educational... bla-bla... But anyhow:support. And the removal of a garbage can on the left is a good idea. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC).
•  Oppose per Pofka --Pudelek (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Too dark -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative

• Brighter version. -- RTA 10:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- RTA 10:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Perhaps very slightly tilted (to the left?). --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tremonist I tried when I was editing, the problem is a distortion, the top don't beautiful align to the bottom. I didn't stop to know how to fix. -- RTA 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Too much bright IMO. Correction needed -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Too bright George?? Russians... too long winters... -- RTA 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • PS:"6 December 2015, 14:58:39" In the pic of sun light, so...
•  Comment I think I prefer the brighter version, but should we use it if it's not true to how it actually looked? This is becoming a recurring question from me. What's the consensus philosophy on this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, probably it's more likely to be closer to the edited version. I just increase sliders in Lightroom, not some extreme Gimp/Photoshop editions and see this.-- RTA 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm therefore  Supporting this version and favor it over the other version. [See below: I prefer the third version, though I go back and forth between that and the original, as there is a good point to be made that a darker shot that focuses more on grayness makes a kind of comment on Brutalism.] -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

For that, I would prefer B&W... -- RTA 09:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment imho postprocessing went too far, sky has signes on posterization. --Ivar (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ivar the author did something weird, see this: [1], when I just raise up the light that appeared, probably a cut something, and this could be the why he left in dark.-- RTA 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose No mood is shown. This version is interesting, but, in whole, rather ordinary photo. + Technical issues: posterization is visible, a black garbage can was cloned out rather untidy. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict]
  • I had uploaded the wrong file, and Dmitry Ivanov, this is obvious, this is a JPEG edition, the author should be the one doing this version from RAW. This is just to give a general idea, but I "fixed". -- RTA 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Less enthusiastic support This still has the striking composition but looks like many of our other photos of brutalist buildings. Yes, they were meant to look good in sunlight. But, as the original nomination shows, when raw-concrete buildings were erected in notoriously cloudy places like the U.S. Rust Belt and the North of England, they tended in the predominantly gray weather to look less like the high-minded libraries and residences they contained within and rather more like the place the missing dissident was last seen being escorted into by the secret police who had shoved him/her into the unmarked van. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support This version is good --Pudelek (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Certainly beautiful but I prefer the other version below. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative by author

•  Info Reprocessed from raw file with brighter midtones and shadows, new crop, and new perspective correction. dllu (t,c) 19:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- dllu (t,c) 19:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - It's a close question for me, but I think this is probably the happy medium between the two other photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Pofka, Rodrigo.Argenton, and Pudelek: What do you think of this version? dllu (t,c) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • dllu, I'm thinking, because if you did that to enhance the greys, as Daniel Case suggested, than I would prefer in B&W. If not, I would like to see more light, bringing the warm colours to the frontal element and creating this contrast with cool colours at the background, this would create more impact on picture. -- RTA 09:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support This probably is the finest version. -- Pofka (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Pofka -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per Pofka, although the RTA's version is very beautiful. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. INeverCry 00:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral (sooner oppose, in reality, but for sake of good statistics, let it be neutral). The first, “dark”, photo is interesting for it is an example of the play on form and for it gives rises to some sullen mood, calls up some thoughts (something about suppressing totalitarian powers). As of the form, this image is OK, but a significant part of mood and thoughts was lost. And another issue: in this, brighter, photo the garbage cans on the left (and also the sitting man in the background (on the left)) became more visible and distracting. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC).

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

The chosen alternative is: File:Hillman Library, exterior (brighter).jpg