Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San José, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg

File:Iglesia de San José, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 21:15:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San José, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San José, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
•  Info Little chapel in the church of St Joseph, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose The standard for religious interiors is very high. I don't see a compelling reason for pointing the camera up, like thousands of other photos on Commons, with the sloping verticals and cropped doorway that results. The angle-of-view leads the eye towards the ugly skylight, which was not really worth capturing. (the photo is tilted -- the chain should be a plumb vertical) -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Very weak oppose I went back and forward on this one but I think Colin's reasoning is compelling. As I mentioned on a nomination below, there's nothing wrong per sé with uncrrected perspective distortion, but only when it serves an artistic purpose, and here I don't think it does. Regrettably the distorted walls are IMO just a bit too odd and they distract from the beauty of the motif. You do have an image of this motif without the perspective distortion, and if you nominated it I would vote for that one without hesitation. Colin, would be interested to hear your opinions on the linked photo. Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the other one is better, though I don't know whether that one is exceptional enough for FP, which should really be about our very best rather than being simply a competent photo. (The chain is off-centre and also slightly rotated, and we tend to be fussy about that on an extremely symmetrical composition.) -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess that issue can be fixed easily, though. For me the other pic is FP simply because it captures a beautiful object with high quality, good detail and good lighting. But i respect your opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful to me, and I prefer this to the view linked by Cmao20 above as a more interesting composition with more elements in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although the equipment may be found by some beautiful ones I miss the wow effect. Instead the brain starts to think about how to understand the perspective.--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly the problem I have here. The perspective gets in the way of the enjoyment of the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment First of all I've to say that this chapel was one of the most beautiful and impressive I've ever seen, and I've visited hunderts of churches worldwide. Whether I've managed or not to capture that beauty is a different question but the item is IMHO definitely FP-worthy. Now, regarding the perspective, well, as Cmao20 found out there is a variant with a perspective correction. To me, both images are the day and the night. In the image with the corrected perspective I had to give up a lot of elements in the composition to get verticals vertical. Here I've the dome on the top (which I indeed like and I wouldn't call "ugly") which offers a nice compo with the circular elements in both walls, I see a portion of both doors and a detail in the top, which combine very good with the stairs. Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• The chapel is really beautiful for sure. I like the dome - agree with you there. The bits of it I don't like are the distorted circular elements on the walls and the fact that the angel statues on the steps are also distorted. Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I like perspective you took. And i hope you wont go "correcting" distiortion. I just miss more contrast. --Mile (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mile: no worries, I'll definitely leave it the way it's. Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)