Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo de la Catedral de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 91-93 HDR.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Museo de la Catedral de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 91-93 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2017 at 21:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info Chapter house located in today's museum of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Quito, Historic Center of Quito, capital of Ecuador. The construction of the catholic temple began in 1562 and it was consecrated 10 years later, but this hall was inaugurated in the 17th century by order of bishop Alonso de la Peña y Montenegro. The chapter house contains paintings of all bishops and achbishops of the Archdiocese of Quito since 1545. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daphne Lantier 21:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Shining ceiling lights here reminds me those annoying blown rays which you get when you are photographing with a cheap smartphone camera. I am really surprised it was produced by Canon EOS 5Ds R, which is one of the finest photographing machines currently available... Maybe problem of the lense? Anyway, it looks unpleasant in those places. Just my thoughts. -- Pofka (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I haven' understood what your point is Pofka and cannot see anything that make me feel this picture was taken with a cheap smartphone camera. Can you be please elaborate your comment? Do you want me to reduce the highlights (I could it is a HDR image)? But first I'd like to understand the problem. Poco2 08:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: Added annotations. Those lamps looks problematic and unnatural to me. They are too shiny and too white. Maybe just for me... Probably we should wait for more comments about this before taking actions. Other parts are definitely great and doesn't remind something that was taken with a smartphone camera. -- Pofka (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I haven' understood what your point is Pofka and cannot see anything that make me feel this picture was taken with a cheap smartphone camera. Can you be please elaborate your comment? Do you want me to reduce the highlights (I could it is a HDR image)? But first I'd like to understand the problem. Poco2 08:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support, the image is compositionally strong to the point and the issue with the lights doesn't challenge that. seb26 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support FP quality --Ermell (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the lamps are almost blinding to look at directly. But the picture gets everything else right that I'd like it to get right. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose --Nice composition and historic value, but the blinding lamps are very distracting for me. --Pine✉ 05:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have an issue with bright lights being bright. And pure white direct light, like the brightest bulb or clear window, should be bright white on a JPG too imo. I dislike it when photographers reduce the highlights such that such bright features are merely paper white. So please don't dim the highlights. If they are too bright then that's the fault of scene/subject, not the photographer. There is a little purple blob of lens flare above some of the near lamps. What is unfortunate is that some of the lamps appear to have compact fluorescent sticks in them, which poke out above the lamp glass shades, and don't match the colour of the tungsten bulbs in the other lamps. One lamp is missing its shade and several are dead. The room does not appear to have (any longer) a source of natural light. So what can one do? It is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Pine.--Karelj (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Having seen the issues people have noted about the lights, I still think this is good enough due to the composition, sharpness and depth. --Peulle (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors