Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2

File:Streisand Estate.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2013 at 07:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2

•  Info created by Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project. Image is aerial photo taken as part of the California Coastal Records Project; after an unsuccessful lawsuit to suppress the image by Barbra Streisand, it later spawned the Streisand effect. - uploaded by Cirt - nominated by Cirt. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  NOTE -- after a prior FPC discussion, the image has since: (1) Become a Valued Image on Commons, and (2) Successfully been promoted to Featured Picture quality on English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Persian Wikipedia. For these reasons I feel it warrants reconsideration. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support as previously. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Heavily tilted, clipped whites. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... and again and again ... please rework simply this image! This image is still tilted and the quality isn't OK (it needs "perhaps" a Curve (tonality) correction). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment - I've left a request for help with image improvement at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Streisand_Estate. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alt 1

•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment Per the new CC guidelines, we must mention what modification we made to the original (to protect the integrity of the original author). So please mention the modifications too. :) Jee 18:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Done :) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Jee 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - My thanks to Alchemist-hp for the improvements, -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, much improved, but still no wow for me. Valued Image, I agree, but not FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Rotation & crop are fine, but the colour adjustment shifts shadows into a blue tone and the images loses detail due to the refined black point. A black point starting at the histogram's left should work. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Info I uploaded a new version with a better color adjustment, I hope. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the changes, looks good to me now. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support As an image, it has improved, but its documentary value has decreased since it is no longer the image that caused the controversy. I'm still OK with featuring this version though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low quality, bad crop, low details, no "wow" at all except scandal. --Kikos (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apart from the celeb-connection i see nothing special. No wow, no exceptional quality, no historical significance. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral The improvement is very significant, but neither the clipping nor the lack of sharpness can be corrected through editing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)