Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di San Francesco d'Assisi altare Incoronazione Vergine Brescia.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Chiesa di San Francesco d'Assisi altare Incoronazione Vergine Brescia.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 09:50:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)- Support - Beautiful. Part of the painting is extremely bright, but maybe it should be! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It is an amazing scene, but it doesn't strike me as looking realistic. The contrast appears very high and the darks at the bottom appear crushed. I looked at the EXIF and see some odd values. Clarity is +28 which may work for a low-contrast scene but can be a little too high for interiors. Texture (essentially clarity at a finer resolution) is +47 which appears very high. And Dehaze is +71 which I find extremely odd. There should be little reason to use dehaze in an interior scene like this, and that value must surely be the cause of the overcooked appearance. There is a danger with these Lightroom controls in that they are like salt in a meal. It makes it taste better at first, but too much spoils it. Otherwise the scene is high resolution and sharp and the subject featurable. I would however, prefer a more modest processing. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support for now. A really beautiful and striking photo! But I agree with Colin that less Clarity, Texture, and espec. Dehaze should make your image even better by giving it a more realistic appearance. --Aristeas (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)- Weak support per Colin and Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support The upper part of the photo is too blue for my taste and I think it looks different in the original. Colin is right with his critical analysis, but FP is right for me.--Ermell (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose precisely per Colin – overprocessed, looking unreal. It’s certainly possible to get a less "optimized" version of the source material. --Kreuzschnabel 09:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin, the post-processing is not well done. --Cart (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Collin. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support maybe a bit too blue ?, but OK for me --Isiwal (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
