Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Petrópolis, Brasil.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Catedral de Petrópolis, Brasil.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 09:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, see notes. -- RTA 16:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)- Oppose Quite some way from the standard for FP church interiors. While stitching with a panoramic head isn't imo necessary (though does produce great results) there's no reason to not use multi-exposure HDR in this situation, just as one would a macro lens for butterflies or a studio lighting for a portrait. Here the image has been considerably underexposed (to retain the bright stained glass and lights) and then recovered in post which results in shadow noise. And even then, the stained glass isn't clear/sharp, which it would be much better with HDR. Also, I note the image is AdobeRGB so everyone viewing with a mobile browser will see the wrong colours. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: church was dark, very dark, exactly as shown in the picture. What you call noise, I think it could be corrected with a noise reduction on a wall that is basically smooth, you think? --The Photographer (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is it "noise" or "what [I] call noise"? Do you want my opinion/advice, or to insult me? -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am not insulting you, I only want your opinion "what you call noise" its fine on spanish. --The Photographer (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well in English it implies that you disagree that it is noise, when it quite plainly is, so is rather rude. I don't think using loads of noise reduction would salvage this as an FP - what detail's lost is lost. It is more noticeable in the smooth areas, just as it is with sky in landscapes. It's a decent enough capture for a single-exposure, but the standard for church photography at FP is pretty high as you know, and as Arion should know. I am currently struggling to produce a decent image from one of my single-frame bracketed-exposure cathedral photos -- the software isn't working for me and I know the results still won't be at FP level. So knowing how it should be done doesn't mean I can reliably deliver! We aren't all Diliff. -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know and thanks for let me know, however, it's a flat wall without any details, the only thing that it lose is the noise and remember that each person interpret his way the FP standards and I very much appreciate your comments, it's something you should know :). BTW, my objetive is improve the picture and not get a FP, honestly I value only individual opinions (especially negative), not the prize. --The Photographer (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Photographer if so, you should use more: Commons:Photography critiques, not the FPC for that... -- RTA 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer if so, you should use more: Commons:Photography critiques, not the FPC for that... -- RTA 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am not insulting you, I only want your opinion "what you call noise" its fine on spanish. --The Photographer (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is it "noise" or "what [I] call noise"? Do you want my opinion/advice, or to insult me? -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: church was dark, very dark, exactly as shown in the picture. What you call noise, I think it could be corrected with a noise reduction on a wall that is basically smooth, you think? --The Photographer (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
