Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Besalú 1.jpg

File:Pont Besalú 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2025 at 08:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Besalú 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Besalú 1.jpg

2762

292

89

122

3888

2592

sky replacement

3564

324

194

251

3888

2592

sky replacement

3831

211

49

97

3888

2592

sky not replaced on right of tower

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
•  Info created & uploaded by Mikipons – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Per below, I think it's bad cloning rather than the sky being replaced - can't see any issues elsewhere along the horizon that suggest the image is a composite - but yes, unfortunately noticeable, likely to be building work. Cmao20 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing light. --Rbrechko (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• per Charlesjsharp --Rbrechko (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Appealing composition, interesting building and compelling light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Times have come, where you must check each pixel. @Charlesjsharp ping the voters. --Mile (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose No response to identification of editing flaws. And as requested: @Tomer T, Agnes Monkelbaan, Giles Laurent, Rbrechko, Ermell, and Llez: @SHB2000, Crisco 1492, Poco a poco, Famberhorst, Aristeas, and Paracel63: Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Will also  Weak oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's a pity that the sky is oversaturated a bit, IMO. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Weak support Beautiful view, good light. There are traces of rather coarse masking (with double contours) at the border of the sky in the top-right corner. – Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Like Cmao20 above (and my own original remark), I am not sure whether the sky has been replaced or just edited in a rather coarse manner, but the artifacts at the border to the sky are certainly irritating. – Aristeas (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support--Paracel63 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Temporary oppose. There is a significant amount of sky replacement. See notes. Some work was done because of cranes in 2008. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. --Milseburg (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose For now. We need a clarification by the author Poco a poco (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)