Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 13:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pažaislis Monastery interior dome.
Opposing without valid reason doesn't count. The guy is actually opposing all the images here with the childish reasons! Take a look: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobelpeopleuploader. Some funny arguments of this person previously: "Pathetic when photographers upload and nominate their own photos. Too me it's like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying..." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:St_Mary%27s_Church,_Radcliffe_Sq,_Oxford,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg), " I don't like the man's very big nose and his tie knot is bad." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Denis_Mukwege_par_Claude_Truong-Ngoc_novembre_2014.jpg), without arguments as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Church_of_St._Teresa_Ceiling,_Vilnius,_Lithuania_-_Diliff.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Spitfire_and_Hurricane_in_the_Battle_of_Britain_Memorial_Flight.jpg and so on. I think he should be blocked from these nominations. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Opposing without valid reason doesn't count." - Reference needed, because that is 100% wrong.
- "The guy is actually opposing all the images here..." - That's a lie. Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures.
- And again: Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures.
- And just because a person is opposing doesn't qualify for blocking "from these nominations". That's your very own opinion and that idea is actually against the whole idea ('everyone can participate') about Wikipedia and the sister projects like Commons. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures – that’s wrong, you certainly didn’t (and are not entitled to before having uttered 50 pieces of rubbish), Nobelpeopleuploader did. I would never go that far to suspect someone in here is working with sock puppets. --Kreuzschnabel 21:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my bad. I have an account for Wikipedia, and one for Commons. I forgot to log off from Wikipedia before going to Commons. I didn't know that you could use the same account on both Wikipedia and Commons. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Academy Awards (oscars) are given to Academy Members so... yep... they nominate their own works ;) --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's a Diliff, and it has the usual quality (trademark sharpness, contrast, light NR). But I don't find the composition and subject very appealing to the eyes here. Certainly useful, but not extraordinary. And there are a few stitching errors here. - Benh (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, you're right, there are some stitching errors. I appreciate Pofka nominating my images but unfortunately it means that I don't have the same quality control on them before nominating, so some errors slip through. I'm surprised that there are such errors though, as I used a panoramic head which has never given me errors before as it's properly calibrated. Weird. I'll see if I can correct it. What do you mean light NR? I don't usually apply any noise reduction to my images if that's what you meant by NR. The only reason my images have less noise than would normally be the case for ISO 500-800 is because the HDR processing takes the better exposed parts of the images (exposed to the right) so even the deepest shadows can have acceptable noise levels. Diliff (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what I believe to be luminance noise pattern, so I believed you applied NR to a small extent. And what I meant is that I like when one goes easy on luminance NR but a bit stronger on chroma NR, as I thought you did. - Benh (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah ok, that's just the base level Lightroom processing settings on RAW files - mild chroma NR and zero luminance NR. Nothing out of the ordinary there, no additional NR applied. I agree with you though, chroma noise is uglier and easier to remove without affecting detail too much. Diliff (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pažaislis_Monastery_interior_dome,_Kaunas,_Lithuania_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=154487574"