Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Candelária por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg

File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Candelária por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 06:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Candelária por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Candelária por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Brazil
•  Info all by me -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose A very beautiful place but it bothers me that it's not centered. A subject like this cries out for a centered composition; compare to this. A deserved QI but not FP in a very competitive genre. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So now FP is a competion Cmao20? And you do not want a good photo, you want a standard. Photograph is not about that. OBS: The photo that you pointed out is not centred, the lack of light at the top gives more weight to the bottom, same as cutting the top. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think FP should be a competition, but I do think that since there is lots of good work being done in this genre, it's appropriate to judge these photos by high standards. Your pic is good and I like it, it's a very spectacular interior, I just find it a bit unbalanced to have so much more room at the bottom than the top. I think it might be better with a bit more sharpening too, it's slightly soft as-is. Don't get me wrong, this is good work, it's just whenever I look at it I can't help wishing it was more central. Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Cmao20, I will not defend more this picture, but food for thoughts:

"bit more sharpening too"

This church is a "no tripod" one in Rio, a dangerous city, that I am not feel comfortable in walk with a camera (let alone with a tripod).

I have a 100D, and 18-55 lens (at the time, the widest lens that I had). The camera is lying on the floor, with people passing by.

Panorama to increase the sharpness and the angle of view was not possible, and afford a camera or lens to take sharper results would cost a lot, a lot, and with this investment Rio would not be a place to walk with a car price camera ( a 80D or D7100 cost a car here), notice that I did not produce photos of the exterior of this church...

So how could I delivery better result?

With this sharp criteria, rich areas of the globe will have their photos highlighted away more often than poor areas. And poor areas being register by foreigners will be the highlight.

Just some thoughts.

Obs:I could increase a little bit sharp in post, however I would like not, as this curves, and colours are not ideal for that. And I can cut and loose information, I do not want too.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Very beautiful image and for me good composition too -- Spurzem (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oh boy did I think we had a sockpuppet :) Per Cmao. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Cmao 20. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak support Not perfect, but enough considering the circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)