Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 20.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Détails du Mihrab 20.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 09:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Too dull and too soft for its small size, sorry. The threshold for building interiors is really high on FPC. --Kreuzschnabel 15:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)- Mild support I agree we do have a high threshold, but for a small image not using a long exposure or elaborate multiple-image tonemapping scheme, this ain't bad. And I feel we certainly could use more mosque interiors to go with all the churches. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment While I agree with Daniel, the clash between the yellow light from the chandelier and the blue light from outside does not make this a harmonious picture IMO. The clock on the wall is excellent for WB and making the pic more about warm light. It could also use a little more brightness. Yes, this is actually me proposing a change of the picture (!) and I did a version of this just to see how it would look, but I will not upload it unless asked for it by the nominator or several other editors. The only reason I propose this is because IssamBarhoumi is relatively new to both QI and FP and not used to all the tricks of the trade we use here to improve our pictures. :) --cart-Talk 22:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)- Comment dear --W.carter just do it and tell me more about IMO --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, since you ask I will upload a new version instead of an alternative and also 'ping' those who have voted already. I will explain what I have done later on your talk page. The "IMO" is just a short form of writing "In My Oppinion" so it's not a technical term if that is what you thought. :) cart-Talk 22:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Dull light, and I'm not overwhelmed by the focus, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Kreuzschnabel: @Daniel Case: @Ikan Kekek: Per IssamBarhoumi's request, a new version of the file is now uploaded. Thoughts? And Issam, you will probably have to refresh your computer to see the new version. cart-Talk 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Kreuzschnabel: @Daniel Case: @Ikan Kekek: inspired from the hints of --W.carter and the photo uploaded i did this photo does that seems better ? --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- @IssamBarhoumi: It is generally regarded as bad manners to upload new versions and ask the community if it is better. When you nominate something here you have to be sure that it is the final version and be prepared to stand by it, this is not like QI where you have discussions about your photo.(Even if it sometimes turns out that way anyhow.) I made a huge exception when I suggested that I could help you out with this photo and only because you are new to this section. People here, including me, don't like to be 'pinged' back to check photos again and again. You need to make a decision on your own about which version to nominate and then leave it at that. --cart-Talk 08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment dear cart-Talk I am sorry for the troubles that I caused next time I will do better --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - W.carter's version is best to my eyes, and I would give it weak support. I'd consider a possible neutral vote for your edit at most. Might you be able to take another photo of this motif in better light with sharper focus? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support per Daniel. INeverCry 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Nice shoot and excellent subject and composition, however, IMHO, you should use less noise reduction and less ISO to generate a better sharpening. Please, try the same shoot with a tripod. The picture size is fine for me because I underestand the camera sensor size too --The Photographer 11:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello everybody thank you for your help, I ll do better next time --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 21:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
