Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support But, could you add some details about how these shots were made on the file page as well as state the projection and software used? (I guess it is basically the same recipe, which you recently explained in quite some detail to Benh). For instance, use the {{Panorama}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about how well the image generation process shall be documented |
---|
|
- Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose "photoshopped" kitsch for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)- What makes it photoshopped/kitsch to you? All images receive processing (even if just to convert the sensor data into a JPG in camera) but calling something photoshopped usually implies that misrepresentation has occurred. This image is basically how the altar truly looks. The only real out of the ordinary processing is in recovering the stained glass detail. It's hard to show you equivalent photos though because as St Paul's Cathedral usually restricts photography, there really aren't any other decent quality photos of this high altar in existence on the web. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think this image is an tonemapping/HDR image. The saturation looks to strong for me = "photoshopped". I think also you know its meaning. It will be also better for us all, to add more info's about your work: camera, lens, from how images it was made, the exposures etc.. At least that would be very interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is tone mapped, as are most of my interior images. I can add this extra information but it won't prove or disprove that the subject is accurately represented. HDR images can be processed to look realistic (which is what I always aim for), and regular single exposures can be processed to look unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- An "accurately represented" image is a matter of opinion. I think the red canal and the saturation are a bit to strong. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) P.S: this is only "one" oppose. I know, your image will be anyway featured :-) And that is also OK for me!
- Yes, of course it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the saturation in the image, nothing looks unrealistic to me. I don't mind opposes when they are reasonable, I just disagree with yours this time. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, so I'd like to believe you. I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the saturation in the image, nothing looks unrealistic to me. I don't mind opposes when they are reasonable, I just disagree with yours this time. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- An "accurately represented" image is a matter of opinion. I think the red canal and the saturation are a bit to strong. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) P.S: this is only "one" oppose. I know, your image will be anyway featured :-) And that is also OK for me!
- Yes, it is tone mapped, as are most of my interior images. I can add this extra information but it won't prove or disprove that the subject is accurately represented. HDR images can be processed to look realistic (which is what I always aim for), and regular single exposures can be processed to look unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think this image is an tonemapping/HDR image. The saturation looks to strong for me = "photoshopped". I think also you know its meaning. It will be also better for us all, to add more info's about your work: camera, lens, from how images it was made, the exposures etc.. At least that would be very interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- What makes it photoshopped/kitsch to you? All images receive processing (even if just to convert the sensor data into a JPG in camera) but calling something photoshopped usually implies that misrepresentation has occurred. This image is basically how the altar truly looks. The only real out of the ordinary processing is in recovering the stained glass detail. It's hard to show you equivalent photos though because as St Paul's Cathedral usually restricts photography, there really aren't any other decent quality photos of this high altar in existence on the web. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support "photoshopped" kitsch for me too. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- You've confused me. Are you saying that you're supporting this "photoshopped" kitsch, or you've accidentally supported it but meant to oppose, or you're disagreeing with Alchemist HP in some kind of obscure way? ;-) Diliff (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- the latter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support I want more kitsch like this. ;o) Yann (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Dman41689 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support St Paul's has been described as "a lasting monument to the glory of God". If it requires Photoshop techniques to capture-on-camera and render-on-screen some of that glory, then I'm sure God approves of Photoshop. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Just superb. Nikhil (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support The whole photo is pure pleasure, especially the beautiful ceiling. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors