Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Sulpice, Nave, Paris 20140515 1.jpg

File:Saint-Sulpice, Nave, Paris 20140515 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2014 at 20:39:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Sulpice, Nave, Paris 20140515 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Sulpice, Nave, Paris 20140515 1.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by DXR - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Looks vaguely familiar. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wow²!. Congratz. That is an amazing piece of work and a massive panorama. Very good exposure control, resolution and DOF. Some inevitable overexposure of the light coming in from some of the windows, but I think you have chosen right to focus on the interior lighting. How much have you struggled with the stitch? Any problems with parallax errors in the process? (I have spend some time scrutinizing for stitching errors, but have not found any). --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks Paris 16. Obviously this is the same subject as in the last nomination (I'm sorry for the confusion surrounding the last one). I have redeveloped everything from scratch using the raw files, and using rectillinear projection, as suggested, and also an HDR approach (while I cannot make them perfect, the windows are also better now) . I think this version is much nicer and closer to reality overall and also quite detailled. Thanks Slaunger for the kind words. I, like some others here, use a panoramic head that gives the possibility to move the camera in a way that avoids parallax pretty well if used carefully (some might still occur, but far less than usual). Honestly, most of the production time spent here is the automated stiching itself which takes quite some time, even with a good pc. --DXR (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, excellent job. Congrats. --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support :-) --XRay ^talk 13:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive indeed. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Congrats on the quality image, you seem to be using a very similar technique as myself (interiors using a panoramic head and HDR tone mapping). You've got Paris, I've got London. ;-) One thing is that you seem to have overexposed the glass. I recommend going for 5 exposures, as far as -5EV to +5EV. That usually covers everything from the shadows to the sunlit stained glass windows. Diliff (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diliff. It's certainly no coincidence, I have tried to emulate your process after seeing your great results. You are clearly right that I should expand my EV range (it is quite annoying that the D800 is limited to 1EV bracketing...). --DXR (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's limited to 1EV bracketing?? I know that many other Nikon cameras for many years have been able to do +-5EV bracketing, long before Canon allowed it and for some time I lusted after a Nikon for that very reason. My first 5D Mk i had 3 bracket maximum with +-3EV which was quite limiting, but now I can do up to 7 bracketed exposures with 3EV steps for a total of 18EV (+-9EV) range. Quite incredible really what a difference that makes for interiors, but 5 bracketed exposures is usually more than enough. Diliff (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right. I did a bit of Googling and it appears that Nikon has taken a backward step with the D800 and it's not possible. There's even a Facebook group dedicated to petitioning Nikon for a firmware update to fix it! :-) Diliff (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Claus (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support This was on my todo-list for long time but u came up with it before me. Nice thing that the exposure blending doesn't introduce ghosting artifacts on the people. And congrats for all your amazing pictures of Paris ! - Benh (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Benh! Photomatix 5 seems to works really well with ghosts. --DXR (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I find that it doesn't do a great job. At least, it spoils the tones of the region that has been corrected for ghosts. It has to use either the overexposed or the underexposed bracketed image(s), and when it does that, it has very limited dynamic range to work with and this area often has a flatter tone. Much better to avoid the ghosts in the first place than to assume you can correct them afterwards. I know, not so easy. :-) Diliff (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so easy, or most of the time impossible :). I don't find anything is spoiled on that picture. And when I do that (manually, I don't have a Photomatix to play with) I find it also give a pleasant result. It's only a matter of post-overexposing and underexposing the normal shot and clone the areas with people on the associated bracketed shots. In the end, the only spoil you get is more noise, which can be worked around easily without too much damage, especially when one has a 5DmkIII or a D800! - Benh (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors