Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2014 at 23:59:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. For me, the wow is in the amazing stucco relief details. Actually, this is part of a series of images taken in this church (others are visible from the image page). The other images also offer interesting views that cannot easily be captured in a single image. However, I think this image is the most representative view of the church and is therefore the one I nominated. Another thing to note is that this is the most time consuming panorama I've ever taken. It was extremely crowded inside and it took about 45 minutes of waiting for the church to become empty enough to complete the panorama. It looks so peaceful and serene in this image, but the truth is, it was more like this. ;-) Diliff (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support WoW, breathtaking -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 00:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support omg, no please! --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support !!! Kruusamägi (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support So different, and yet so alike, the other church pano from Vilnius you've uploaded. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's true, most of the churches in Vilnius are Baroque and therefore of a similar style, but this one stands out as being the most intricately detailed. And actually it's also quite different to the vast majority of my previous British churches and cathedrals too as they mostly took a pass on Baroque architecture. Diliff (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great perspective. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I didn't think I would ever see a church interior image that would motivate my support, mostly because I know nothing about these things and have no innate interest in them. But this is a truly brilliant image. -- Des Callaghan (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support magnificent, even by your already absurdly high standards ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Evey minute was worth waiting, simply phenomenal! --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Superb. --Cayambe (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --ArildV (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --LC-de (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 16:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Impressive image, as usual... and a very lovely church. Have you done anything to improve the contrast between white and shadow areas? It looks very marked... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
  • Well, it's an HDR image so it is impossible to say that nothing has been done to the contrast because by definition, contrast adjustment is something that is intrinsic to HDR processing. However, I don't think it looks abnormal. I guess you could say that the micro contrast is higher than the original images, but the actual contrast is lower (hence it is possible to turn a high dynamic range into a lower dynamic range JPG). Diliff (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Arcalino (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great, but asymmetric bench placing should be illegal... --DXR (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Brilliant. -- Colin (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Mehdi^Talk 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - I was going to make a joke about asymmetry but DXR seems to have taken that topic already :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support great blabla (as usual). It is really rectilinear ? Lines going from center to upper corners seem to be bending slightly. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahh, well spotted. My first thought was that it must be an illusion but you're right, they are bending slightly. As I've taken so many photos in Lithuania, I assumed it was pure rectilinear (as virtually all my interiors are). However, I do sometimes apply a small amount of vertical (and/or horizontal) compression, which seeks to minimise the rectilinear distortion at the edges of the frame. This has the side effect of the perspective lines bending slightly as the compression is progressively applied. I'm happy to update the image description to explain this slight curve of the lines. Diliff (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support good --.snoopy. 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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