Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Intern.jpg

File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Intern.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 21:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Intern.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Intern.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  I withdraw my nomination The church of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Saint Charles at the Four Fountains), also called San Carlino, is a Roman Catholic church in Rome, Italy. The church was designed by the architect Francesco Borromini and it was his first independent commission. It is an iconic masterpiece of Baroque architecture, built as part of a complex of monastic buildings on the Quirinal Hill for the Spanish Trinitarians, an order dedicated to the freeing of Christian slaves. He received the commission in 1634, under the patronage of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, whose palace was across the road. However, this financial backing did not last and subsequently the building project suffered various financial difficulties. All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice white! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Though I suspect that it is leaning outwards a bit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I feel like the framing is not ideal. It's too tight, with the columns on the top and the seating at the bottom being cropped out. Diliff (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's the beauty of this church and a challenge to Borromini. The space was small and no one wanted to build a church (given the small space available) and he accept and exploit the height and not the depth (like the others church of the moment). In this way the people were pushed to look to the other masterpiece that is the dome. Then I do not have a wide angle and or I cut the floor and took the columns (with later: "Why did you cut the floor?"). Greetings.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. My question would then be "why don't you get a wide angle lens?" or "Why don't you try stitching?" :-) Diliff (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I tried, but in this case I would take the bottom of the dome and preferred to cut the columns and not the beautiful dome. Regards. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK, that's your choice, but I don't see a problem with including a partially cropped dome - nobody expects to see a complete dome when looking horizontally straight down the nave, but it's usually better to see at least some of the ceiling. Anyway, the cropped columns is only one half of the issue. The other half is that you don't have enough foreground (IMO). Diliff (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You can see a part of ceiling,is that "triangle" on. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree that the bottom crop is not really convincing, quality is good, but not extraordinary (considering what we are used to see here) but my reason to oppose is just the subject. It is a church like many other without anything that amazes me and that I expect here, sorry. Poco² 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Really others think this or this...only for say...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, then that doesn't speak for you, since I cannot confirm that based on what I see above. That's just my opinion and FPC is a place where I can express it. Poco² 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• certainly, but that does not mean is right--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• And there is nothing about the reviews you provided that suggests they are right either. Besides, we tend to be a bit more analytical in our critiques of church interiors than the average tourist. Diliff (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is one of the most beautiful churches in Rome as well as tourists from architects. I did not say I'm right, I said it is not said that you have!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

•  weak oppose I've googled a bit and I agree with Diliff that a wider view would definitely be nicer. It feels very tight as it is And since quality isn't on par with what we have best, I weak oppose. But I think it's worth a reshot if you want to give it a try with a wider framing. I like the white. - Benh (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Diliff, Poco and Benh. I think a view like that would be better. In your version the paintings on the sides can't be seen. Your picture just shows too much plain white and the crop at the bottom is not the best either. The church itself is featurable, of course. --Code (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
•  OpposePer others with regrets, as a reshot is possible. I like the white too. Lack of sharpness at the top of the altarpiece.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but FP should be our finest images. What makes this picture to one of our finest interior photos? QI yes, but every QI of a nice church is not FP. Neither quality or composition is outstanding. In other words, sorry but no WOW for me.--ArildV (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• What questions ArildV, what is special about an insect, a building, a car or anything that I do not think it's great, but I have the decency to respect the opinion of others (although I put voted against). However, it is one of the most beautiful churches of Rome, is the last work of Borromini, is the only baroque church higher than wide, I do not know... you choose.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read again LivioAndronico. I wrote: what makes this picture to one of our finest interior photos? I never asked what is special about the church. I asked what is special about your image! I think the composition and quality is average QI. And as I wrote every QI of a nice church is not FP. --ArildV (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read again ArildV, and I asked "what is special about an insect, a building, a car or anything that I do not think it's great"? Is the same,for you this isn't this interior as the same time I don't find outstanding other things that you like but I don't ask for why nominee it--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No LivioAndronico. My review is about your photo, its not about the church. The church is outstanding, the images is not outstanding.--ArildV (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)