Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - This is one of two beautiful interiors of parish churches you recently nominated to QIC. The near corners are unsharp, so you might consider a crop if it doesn't damage the composition, but otherwise, it's great. (Aside: I really like the fresco in the dome; do you have another picture that includes the whole thing and/or do you know who painted it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about Fresco
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you. I've made a 360° panorama of the church which offers a full view of the paintings. Unfortunately I don't know much about the church. I tried to find some information about it in the Internet but there doesn't seem to be a lot. In the church itself there wasn't any more information to find as well. Regarding the crop: I really like the view this way and I don't think that the corner unsharpness is really disturbing so I'd prefer to keep the picture as it is. I still could downsample it a little bit to increase the sharpness but that would reduce the level of detail. --Code (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't downsample. I don't love the unsharp corners, but they don't come close to ruining the photo, so if cropping would cause more harm than good, leave well enough alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the link. How do you like the scene in the fresco with all the serpents falling out of the sky? That's not a common subject for a fresco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found it very strange indeed and I don't really know what it stands for (which is a shame as I'm catholic myself and probably should know it). The interior of the church is for some reasons interesting: The church is named after the holy cross but you find a lot of different saints in there, the man on the right side is probably Saint Lawrence on the left side you can see Saint Sebastian. At the left side of the high altar you can see Saint George with the dragon. I dont' really know why they all appear there. And who's the guy with the arrows at the right side of the altar? Anyways: It would be nice to know much more about the church. Maybe an Austrian Wikimedian could try to gather some more information? --Code (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo and sharp from left to right. Wrt Ikan's comment, the only bit "unsharp" are the corners of the nearby pews, which are out-of-focus. That's to be expected and in no way harms the composition and square framing. I'm really not sure why one would expect or need them to be in in focus. Are we going to start focus stacking church interiors now too? Please, let's accept reality a little. Having some parts out-of-focus is an indication they are not important and the eye is led elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about DoF
Thank you, Colin, I fully agree regarding the out-of-focus-parts. The problem doesn't appear in all church interiors, it depends on how small the church is. The smaller it is, the harder it will be to get everything in focus when the single exposures are done with 50mm focal length. I already thought about trying the 85mm lens for such pictures but I think this will only work in really large cathedrals (if it works at all). Maybe I should rather use the 35mm lens for smaller churches but then we won't get the level of detail we have with the 50mm lens. Maybe Diliff, DXR or Benh can share their opinions on that? I remember that DXR did some of his excellent stitched interiors with a 35mm lens as well, but maybe I'm wrong with that. The idea of doing focus stacking in churches is funny. I'm already doing between 75 and 140 single exposures for such a picture. With focus stacking how much would we have? --Code (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I supported the picture; I simply gave a reaction that I don't love the out-of-focus places in the foreground. And what I'm reacting to is the fact that the closest areas are not out of focus to the naked eye. My reaction is based on that reality, not the reality of photographic lens construction and behavior. Sometimes, it's good to deal with the limitations of lens capabilities by cropping out the areas of the foreground that are unsharp; maybe this time, it's best to leave them in the picture, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with my mentioning them, just because the limitations of lens technology will cause a degree of unsharpness to occur in the near corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about "the limitations of lens capabilities" but about reality. Close one eye. Stick your finger up at arms length. Focus on something distant. Your finger is out-of-focus. That's reality. If we artificially extend the range of focus then, as Benh notes, it ends up being "computer generated imagery". For a still image that does not change as you move around it, one must accept that some parts are in focus and some parts not. -- Colin (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to criticize you, Ikan Kekek, sorry. It's perfectly ok for me that you mention the unsharpness of the nearest parts. I just wanted to explain the technical limitations. --Code (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I once again agree with User:Colin. This is not computer generated imagery, and not everything can be in focus. Second, who gives a shit about the OOF benches? There are plenty of other benches which are in focus and help mentally extrapolate. And to Code, I've yet to figure out the relationship between all the variables (focal length, relative aperture, absolute aperture and DOF) so right now I've no opinion on the matter, but this is a really interesting question. I'll get back to you if I figure it out. For now all I can say is that one must use hyperfocal distance focusing to get the most DOF out of such scene, but I'm pretty sure you do that already. - Benh (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. And to take it further, sometimes a little out-of-focus foreground makes an image all the more special too (I'm thinking more about landscapes than architecture) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late on this (and well, being quite passive these days). Yes, indeed I did many shots with a 35mm and I personally feel that it is better suited for narrow churches with detailed benches. In general, the differences are not too huge between 35mm and 50mm, especially if good lenses are used. 50mm almost always requires a smaller aperture than ideal in such conditions and so the theretical resolution advantage is somewhat lost. I do not feel that the unsharpness is too distracting here (in fact, I find the slight asymmetry more annoying, another common pain caused by super wide angle panoramics...). --DXR (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I understand that the light conditions are challenging here but some important areas of the pictures are too dark Poco209:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't like the style of the church (imo Baroque is quite messy in general), but well executed photo --DXR (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Interior of the roman-catholic parish church in Going am Wilden Kaiser (Tyrol, Austria). All by me -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I understand that the light conditions are challenging here but some important areas of the pictures are too dark Poco2 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
