Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Organ, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg

File:Organ, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2019 at 18:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Organ, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Organ, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical instruments
•  Info The pipes of the Walker organ in the Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, which fill the east end of the north aisle. The organ was built in 1854 for another church and transferred here in 1982 when that church closed. You can see the position of the organ in this photo. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The upper part is too dark for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Michielverbeek I'm confused how the natural darkness of recessed shaded pipework can be a reason to oppose? And the 500-year-old oak timbers are dark wood. You can see in this photo how shaded this corner of the church is. -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it is natural darkness, but it makes my eyes go to the bottom. If this bottom would have been a strong wow, this darkness would have added something to the whole compostion --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stitching errors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Basile can you point out where you think there are stitching errors please -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Second highest pipe at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Basile Morin, I can see why you might think that, but it is just the shape of the pipe. See this frame. You said "stitching errors" -- are there any more areas you suspect? Basile, I know you are still relatively new here, but most reviewers do not oppose for trivial defects (a few pixels in a 100-million pixel image) or for easily fixable defects. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then a lot of pixels yes but the subject itself, ordinary organ of a church with boring light, is less than average in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Question I wonder why nearly all of the pipes appear dirty, as if having been sprayed with something white from above. --Kreuzschnabel 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel I don't know. The stone columns in the church are very clean, so perhaps there was some spray when they were cleaned. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ooops – really bad idea to not protect the organ before starting such work. --Kreuzschnabel 18:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm only guessing. It is probably just chalky water that will wipe off with a wet cloth, but they'd need scaffolding to reach the top I think. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Seems fairly uncontroversially FP to me. I can't see any stitching errors and if there are any, they are not sufficient to preclude my support given that they must be fairly small. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see anything wrong with the image. Why can't a dirty object be a FP also? Not everything has to be perfectly clean and as for stitching errors, I don't care anyways, --Boothsift 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support because of the uneven light on the organ, but not all the things that should have been cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose very good and interesting subject, but the upper part a bit more shadowed make it a bit unballanced, and I'm not a fan of the framing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm also surprised with the "dark upper part" reviews. That seems natural to me, so either we have different tastes (then no arguing) or some monitors are not properly calibrated (could be mine, I'll check). Personally I like it that the different rows are lit differently. It gives depth. - Benh (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support - the detail and educational value is nice enough for support this well-done image, but the light (and perhaps the tight composition -- although I don't know what's just outside of the frame) takes away some of the wow — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, the organ fills the end of the aisle so there is nothing left or right in this plane we can see. At the edges of the frame are the walls on either side of the aisle. To the left is a window on the north wall, which would be distractingly bright, and to the right is an arch and column, which wouldn't be interesting or even perhaps in focus. You can see the context in this photo. This is about as symmetrical a framing I can get for a non-symmetrical subject. Thanks for the support. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Moahim (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I kind of like the gradual natural light. -- Cart (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Musical instruments