Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 19.JPG

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

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 19.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 09:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •  Info Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. All by me, Poco2 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. Hmmm. Composition is good. Lighting is good. Sharpness in the centre is good. Sharpness at the edges is terrible. Whether this is important when the main subject is sharp enough, I don't know. I do find it quite off-putting though. Was this focal length necessary? According to this Google Street View panorama, you could have gotten further back which might have allowed you to use a lens with less problems at the edges. Just my thoughts anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I also think the soft edges aren't a big deal, and the picture is big enough (nice camera you've got ;) ). I agree with Diliff's suggestion though. I personally think that it's a tad oversaturated, especially in the sky. Great picture otherwise. - Benh (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I also noticed the sky looked a bit oversaturated. Actually for me it looks more like the luminosity of the sky was reduced, it looks a bit dark particularly in patches. The picture is big enough for sure, and the softness at the edges is probably exaggerated because of the large resolution, but that's the thing about these super high resolution cameras, you really have to attach the best lenses to get the most from them. Diliff (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (for the time being) per BenH: Please fix saturation / luminosity a bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Benh, Diliff, and Martin Falbisoner: I have uploaded a ✓ new version following your advices. Indeed, this camera is a jump in many sense and the issues of some lenses (especially this one) get now obvious along with more difficulties to stitch handheld panoramas. It is without any doubts a learning process I am going through. Regarding the location, I could have indeed got a bit further and use a different lens but the place was really crowded and this shot is the best trade off I can offer. Poco2 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I allow myself an advice to you (you probably are aware of the trick, but it's free to mention it) : on crowded places, it's possible to take several shots, and then to blend them with proper masks to get rid of most tourists. I used that pretty successfully in the Vatican musuem, and I think it's at least as crowded :) I didn't even use a tripod there, but it's still better to take the shots from the exact same point of course when you can. - Benh (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was aware of that, David mentioned it some time ago. To be honest I haven't tried it out yet, but probably I should. Poco2 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I use that for other purposes... like averaging several pictures to similate a long exposure shot if I forget my ND filter. Wonder if using it to remove people wouldn't leaves a few ghosts here and there. The way I tell you about gives you more flexibility and allows you to leave an arbitrary person (or any number of people) if you feel like it improves the composition though :) - Benh (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fine with me. Don't mind little unsharp areas on the borders (top church, and sides) or some slightly blown out details (white statues mainly). This is where shooting non Canon comes in handy : one can underexpose with more confidence ;-) But, again, great shot. - Benh (talk)
  •  Support Although I prefer Diliff's distor･･･ wide angle perspective :) P.S. There are a bit CAs. --Laitche (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ CA gone Poco2 12:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
    Which magic did you use! The guy on the right side was wearing green T-shirt but now he is wearing green and gray two-tone T-shirt. --Laitche (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
    The magic is called Lightroom and Color tab in Lens correction. It looks like I just went a bit too far with it, new version Poco2 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Could be better in some parts and that CB antenna on church roof is strange. But other part make it. --Mile (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not good enough. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The top is blurry and the image is flattened: people look more fat than they are and the circles ar not round --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry,per Moroder --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment @Moroder and Livioandronico2013: I adressed the mentioned distortion in a new file version Poco2 19:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Poco, you can't just change the aspect ratio linearly to fix the perspective distortion, now the tower is squashed. I'd recommend you use software like Hugin (I assume it can do it, definitely PTGui can) to do it intelligently so it compresses the edges more than the middle. It's a bit like taking a print of this image as it is now and then curving the edges of the paper backwards. The middle remains relatively unchanged but the edges are progressively compressed. Diliff (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David, I understand what you say but since my edit targeted the distortion of the rose window, which is in the middle (and not at the saids overlooking the middle) the result shouldn't be worse than before the edit. Maybe the sides need an additional progressive correction but my target is not actually to fully de-fish the image, and cannot understand all those opposes, either, for using this lens for this shot. Poco2 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I see. Well, a fisheye lens is not really a good choice for architecture (unless you really have no other choice, but then you can't be guaranteed FP simply because it was the only option). If the rose window was squashed, then maybe the problem was with the original perspective correction? Not all perspective correction is equal - there is bad technique and good technique. Good technique uses software that factors in the angle of view/focal length when making the calculations. Simply straightening the verticals without considering the effect on the geometry is bad technique. I can't see everything you do to process the image so I cannot judge your processing directly, but every action has a consequence, and as you can see, it's quite complicated with wide angle images. :-) I appreciate that it's hard to understand some opposes though, I have the same thoughts many times too. I just think that in this case, you didn't need to use this lens and the image suffers because of it. For me with interior images, a wide angle view is very important because you have no choice to get further back to show as much of the interior as possible. But I don't think it was so simple here. Diliff (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It appearance is better but I do not like distortion as you well know, however, the subject is very nice and in the center is very sharp. --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the digital correction did not worked here. The sky is super weird, and the reason is pretty obvious... -- RTA 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rodrigo.Argenton: can you please elaborate your comment? what is that obvious reason that makes the sky weird? Poco2 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fisheye lens.-- RTA 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The image has been 'de-fished'. In fact there's some pin cusion distortion (unless the bridge is actually raised in the centre? it seems to be judging from the stops at the entrance) but that's the opposite effect of fisheye, which bulges the image outwards, not inwards. So although a fisheye lens was used to take this, the sky looks just like it would if an ultrawide rectilinear lens was used (except perhaps that when an image is de-fished, it's digitally stretched which reduces sharpness more than optically. In other words, if your main intention is to de-fish a fisheye lens, it's probably better to just get a rectilinear lens to begin with as it'll be sharper. Diliff (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the sky. --Claus 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I really don't know. On the one hand: The center is perfectly sharp. The building is interesting. The composition is good. The light is good as well. On the other hand: The edges are terribly unsharp. There is some aliasing at the statues on the right side. The spire is heavily distorted and not very sharp. Concerning the sky I don't know whether its great or ugly. Somewhere in between. All in all I'm somehow undecided. Maybe I'll change to support after having another look tomorrow. --Code (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I had a think about it and I have to oppose. I think the edges may not be part of the actual subject, but they are part of the composition and they are distractingly soft and unaesthetic.As I said above, many of the problems with this image could have been avoided IMO if a different lens and camera position were used. Diliff (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is fine as it is now I think. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition is ok, the sky work well, but side are a bit blurred, somewhat overexposed, the top of the building too. My main concern is overexposition. -- Christian Ferrer 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian: I've reworked the brigther areas, although I was surprised about that being the main reason to oppose.
Diego, It's the main reason for me because it's quite easily avoidable by playing with the time exposure after to have check on the camera if the image is correctly exposed. And you can not rework the brigther areas, as details are lost, it's the reason of an oppose and not a comment. -- Christian Ferrer 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, In summary, if you try to include statues in your composition if you need to expose them too correctly, IMO it's quite easy in exterior photography. -- Christian Ferrer 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Santuario_de_Las_Lajas,_Ipiales,_Colombia,_2015-07-21,_DD_19.JPG&oldid=168399009"