Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Kirche St. Peter - Westansicht.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 21:00:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Very good quality and composition, but a bit on the dark side. Judging from the histogram, +0.8 EV would be possible (and make it more impressive IMHO). --Kreuzschnabel 08:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are right, there are also some other minor improvements I have to do I noticed after uploading. There will be a new version of this image soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Colin: the stitching error is fixed, I have just found one (one the upper part of the street lamp).
- Kreuz: I have a new 27 inch EIZO that I have calibrated two weeks ago. So I have adjusted the lightning conditions on my monitor yesterday. But as I looked my image on my office monitor today I saw that the average user will feel this image is to dark. So I have lighten it up a little bit. I hope it's enough. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Neutral The quality of the image is just stunning, however the feeling it provides isn't - depressing. The nature is dead, the building is grey, the lighting is cold. Snow might improve it, but there is no such thing in this picture. By looking at it I really would not enjoy being there for any second. I think it is a poor timing selection, but the quality is really great, so I will just leave it for others to judge. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "dead nature" is a perfect time to make a picture from the westside. If you have foliage on trees this view wouldn't be possible. Beside of this I like this atmosphere: a church from the sixties with sparse nature. Some find the church interesting, some would say it's ugly. But my intention was to show this image in high resolution and nice sunset light so that you like to explore it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. That's why I have mentioned snow. I think it would make its job here to contrast the ground with the these dead trees. There are quite many of these and I am sure they cover the church up at warmer periods. Though, the picture is just too cold for me to support it not matter what quality it has, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment There are some stitching errors and the verticals lean to the right - some vertical control points might help. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've highlighted one error in the tree. The verticals are still very wonky. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Per Pofka. Usual quality from author, but I'm less convinced by the composition, setting and lighting. I think though that one can see through the trees here. It's probably more cluttered when spring arrives, which may be a good point. Biggest (not all) stitching error was fixed, but it still looks to lean to the right.- Benh (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching error. I can't undestand it!? My opinion a 36MP single shoot (or a bit less) is more than enough for a good (or FP) image. Better than an image with a visible stitching errors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
