Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior.jpg

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

File:San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 12:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Crisogono (Rome) - Interior
  • It would have been more elegant to put neutral because one thing you favor and one against Tomascastelazo. However that kind of perspective I can? It 'a church and if you want to see all is the only way.Besides the churches maybe he will be taken from the same point of view, but there are many types like: Medieval, Romanesque, Gothic, neoclassical, etc...I'd be curious to know the David's opinion --LivioAndronico talk 19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my opinion is that if Tomas thinks they are all indistinguishable, perhaps he should refrain from voting on church interiors in future because he seems incapable of judging them fairly. It's one thing to find a particular photo or view boring, but he seems to think that all symmetrical views of church interiors are boring and therefore a good reason to oppose, and that's a systematic bias that I think should be acknowledged. I agree with you that there's usually very limited options for locations to photograph a church interior and the most aesthetic and educational view is usually the view from the entrance looking straight down the middle. This is the way church interiors are designed to be viewed, so it makes sense to photograph it in this way. I do think the technical quality of this image is not great though. It's the same problem I see in your other interior photos: the textures are not sharp and it looks like too much noise reduction, which I don't understand really because at ISO 100, it should be free from noise and noise reduction shouldn't be necessary. Also, it looks like you didn't quite take the photo from the middle. You are slightly to the left of the centre. Livio, can I have a copy of the RAW file that you used to make this image? I'd really like to see whether the image quality is because of the camera, or because of the processing you use. If you are happy to let me see the RAW file, send me an email with the link to the file. Diliff (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • David, why don´t you keep your thoughts to yourself about my voting on nominations that are not yours? You have a nasty habit of contaminating other nominations that need not be contaminated. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was in the context of a disagreement with you, and he didn't say that he only wanted an opinion on the image, so I took it to mean he wanted an opinion about the thread you and he were involved in. Diliff (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No,no I asked the David's opinion for your opinion: How is possible ask for another way for do a pictures of a church??? And more....all the church are similar? This do understand me that your knowledge of churches is somewhat limited, as is mine to the photos of quartered animals--LivioAndronico talk 08:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, if the sidekick wants his masters opinion, so be it... And going back to the issue, which is the cookie cutter way in which churches are generally presented here. Yes, most catholic churches have the same layout design wise, especially medieval and renaissance churches. That style was exported to the american continent and can be seen throughout latin america in their different styles and interpretation of styles. However, I think that while the layout forces people to initially encounter the church due to the manner into which one enters the church, it always gives a generic point of view, the visual encounter becomes rather boring, for it becomes a repetitive pattern of perspective, etc. To photograph a church interior from this point of view, while providing a familiar look, it becomes too familiar and a run of the mill image, regardless of the craftsmanship needed to photograph the subject. In your particular case, the challenge is not to replicate someone else´s style, for that spot has already been taken, but rather, to find a new interpretation of the same subject that shows the particular attributes of a generic subject. Without a doubt David´s images are unquestionably, in his style, the best images of church interiors around here (achieved despite the inherent dangers that lurk in those tourist attractions ;)) and he has set a very high bar for everyone else, myself incuded. So if I were to photograph genetic churches (generic in the way that basically obey to the same layout) I would not try to replicate what someone else is already doing, but to find a way to document the same generic building springing from its particularity or contribution to the arts. Now, insofar as you trying to learn clairvoyance from your master in the way of determining my understanding of things, try another tack, he is indeed a master craftsman in photography, but rather a poor clairvoyant. I do have an an understanding of churches, and not just their architectural elements, but also their history, their construction methods, the workers who built them, the symbolism present, their cultural role, etc., but I guess that is another issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've downloaded them and processed them as I would normally process my own images. I can see that there are some minor differences between your final image and mine. You seem to have applied a much stronger contrast on the image, and also a stronger sharpening effect. My image has a bit more detail visible of the wooden reredos behind the altar (not so dark) and the sharpening looks a bit more realistic in my image (I think). I also corrected the perspective a little bit better, so that the floor was not looking tilted, and I left a bit more of the ceiling which you cropped out (just my tastes, but maybe you didn't want so much of it). I've uploaded my version as a derivative of yours (hope you don't mind), so you can compare them directly. The difference is small but I think these small differences do improve the image quality. Diliff (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done King --LivioAndronico talk 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

By Diliff
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:San_Crisogono_(Rome)_-_Interior.jpg&oldid=324486761"