Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glasgow City Chambers - Banqueting Hall - 6.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Glasgow City Chambers - Banqueting Hall - 6.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2016 at 15:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Glasgow City Chambers, UK
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info created and uploaded by Colin - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support dynamic image with this bird's perspective -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Being taken halfway up a tall room means this image doesn't suffer from the vertical-perspective issues that affect many grand interior photos. High ISO since it was taken on a tour with no tripod permitted. Christian, ArionEstar, I've uploaded a new version with some midtone colour correction to avoid a green tinge -- you may need to use Ctrl-F5 or similar to reload the image. -- Colin (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for a out-of-the-hand-shot a very good work! --Hubertl 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm not finding the composition really compelling. I understand that the advantage to this view over the straight view is that this photo is not dominated by a large electrolier in the foreground, but this view accentuates the crops to me and the way they bisect a table and also the curvature of the ceiling on the left side. It's certainly a good picture, but I'll let others decide whether it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support INeverCry 01:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good Lord, what is FP here. My eyes feel straight to lights, chroma noise is huge, HDR should be made like i did down. Composition is awkward here, doesnt work. 9,5 MPx shot from 24 MPx camera, what would be colors seen in normal resolution ? --Mile (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mile, I agree this is noisy (though luminance, not chroma noise, is the issue here) at ISO 1250, and I'm not so aggressive with NR as some others. My photo of the electrolier handled the bright lights by under-exposing the image and then recovering. Here the photo is of the whole room, and the lights are less significant -- bare light bulbs should be white and glow, so I think the effect here is realistic for what the eye sees. I would love to take a stitched HDR photo of this room, and perhaps that could be arranged some day with special permission -- but tripod photography wasn't allowed on the tour of the building I was on. Ultimately, though, you should judge the image, not the situation or camera, so I wouldn't expect this to get an easy ride at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my photo. With respect to Christian and the other support votes, I think I have persuaded myself to agree with Mile -- this is not among our interior finest images. I think my own natural bias towards my own image, and the difficulty of taking a good shot in the circumstances, encouraged me to think that this was good enough. It isn't. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Colin it is Christian nominee, can that be done i dont know. I had one case of nominating my photo by other, maybe strange since not all are OK, I rather see what to bring here. For noise and tripod, if this would be some huge story behind it, Titanic pub or Unesco site, i would agree. Look at my ISO 1600, UNESCO site, 1/6s from last year. They didnt care much. --Mile (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin have the right to withdraw, I respect that and it is in the rules, no problem. Though we upload our images in the purpose that they are free to be reused, it should start with a free use of the images in our local projects and by the respect of its potential uses by others, e.g. a nomination here. It is a kind of paradox, but I think it's a good thing for several reasons that the author have the right and the possibility to withdraw. I myself had withdrawn a lot of my nominations with already enough votes to be promoted, but I never withdraw a nomination made by someone else. I would tend rather to oppose or to remain neutral but in all cases to respect the choice of the nominator. That's said to have a high quality demands on these own works is a proof of selflessness and is quite respectable, this is how I take this withdraw and I respect that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Christian Ferrer you are right, its is paradox. For that 10-15 people i see here mostly, i think man can put his own nominee up. What i want more, to make this anonymus for time of voting. Now many are afraid to vote minus, keeping low profile, protecting own photo...this isnt good. I did promote 1-2 images of other people, which arent seen here, thats OK. Something will have to be done here, till better times. --Mile (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Glasgow_City_Chambers_-_Banqueting_Hall_-_6.jpg&oldid=195238880"