Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 15:21:04 (UTC)

Original – The ruins of Fountains Abbey, a former Cistercian monastary in Yorkshire, England.

Reason: It's an interesting and aesthetic view of the ruins of Fountains Abbey.
Articles in which this image appears: Fountains Abbey, Cistercian architecture, Cistercians, Abbeys Amble, Henry Murdac, History of Yorkshire, Grade I listed buildings in Harrogate (borough) and 6 more lists.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image looks very flat. This one does not scream Feature to me. It actually looks very much like a typical tourist photo.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting the bang-on exposure, straight verticals, and balanced composition, you'd be right. 70.72.190.205 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reword that a bit. As usual, Diliff's photography is superb, but the exposure does seem to leave the image flat and without dimension. The focus is sharp and one can see every detail and every separate brick, but its the lighting in this scene that seems to cause the eye to try to grasp hold of something for direction. The cloudy conditions seem to have detracted from the over all look and feel of this one.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wouldn't go so far as to call this a tourist photo, but I agree that it seems a bit... drab. That being said, this is a fantastic image: tack sharp, well exposed, and pretty well composed (though I feel another 250px on either side would have balanced the image a bit better). Cutting a bit from the top and bottom may work as well. If we get a better image, we can delist it. For now, this is pretty much perfect for its purpose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- The composition is a bit boring, the object looks strangely far away. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers and on the nitpicking side, haloings going on around the trees + double leaves, probably as a result of exposures blending (?). - Blieusong (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw this one given the feedback. I thought the lighting was dramatic rather than flat, but I can appreciate that perhaps the composition could be improved. I was trying to get as far back as possible to get the whole structure in (actually it's even much bigger than this but really only an aerial view would show it better). Blieusong, as for the double leaves, you're right. I thought I had cropped that out of the frame but I guess not. And indeed it is an exposure blend to avoid the sky being overexposed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]