Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (bw).jpg

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (bw).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2023 at 11:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (bw).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (bw).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Horology
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Info A timepiece in a historical environment ... To emphasize the black and white, strong contrasts were used. --XRay 💬 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Info May be this one is better: File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (kreativ 2).jpg. However, I didn't nominate the image because it may have too much effects (monochrome, vignette). Or should it be offered as an alternative? --XRay 💬 11:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

   Comment That one works better for me, it's got a mysterious feel about it. Neither of them gives any usable clues about the location though. I like the idea, but before reading the description I was struggling to make a connection between the watch and the moss. The color version at least hints at a fence with barbed wire on top, but that is completely lost in the monochrome versions. El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm totally unsure if I should offer one of the other variations as an alternative. After all, the basis is the same image. I think they are different and the color version may be good for another nomination - later. --XRay 💬 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- XRay 💬 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much contrast. The other one is better. Yann (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Yann. -- Karelj (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I'm probably in the minority, but I quite like the contrast. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose The problem of the over-contrasted images of this kind is that they seem to have been copied, manipulated, many times from a distant original, like a photocopy on paper which has lost all its shades. It gives the impression of an inaccurate reproduction of another artwork. Actually it's just too clear that the picture was different at the origin, and even if this choice is deliberate, the absence of intermediate tones is quite rude, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have to vote with the other opponents. I know the coloured original you took. And this one is very beautiful. It shows these tiny little green shots growing in front of the pocket watch, giving a nice contrast to the background and the golden finish of the casing. And I can understand your approach to work out a monochrome variant. But the gradation you chose here is very hard, eliminating all the nice tones known from the original, letting this little green nature disappear as well as many other details you once captured in that photo. --August Geyler (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Even though the nomination is only a few days old, the interim result seems clear to me. Thank you for your comments. --XRay 💬 17:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay 💬 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)