Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg

File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 21:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  InfoIn Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola) it was probably painted by Taddeo Zuccari following an iconographic program dictated by Annibale Caro. At center stage of the central oval is depicted Twilight that turns its two torches toward the night and the other towards the dawn; the sides are the Moon, on a cart pulled by oxen, and Mercury holding the Caduceus.All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Bravo! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice colors ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not fan of the oval crop (which doesn't look centered), but you did a really nice job with the fixes! Pretty good quality overall. - Benh (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd mind less about the oval if it matched the oval in the scene. Here it just looks like an arbitrary selection. There's no colourspace tag or profile -- you've been using paint.net again. Please uninstall that program -- it's for editing screenshots and icons, not photographs. I suspect you may have boosted the clarity and saturation a bit too much, but who knows what colours I should see if they are not defined. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done No Colin, just photoshop when I open the photos ask me if I plan to manage the color space and probably I will put no ... however solved in 30 seconds ...Thanks for visiting--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

The exif said "Creator Tool paint.net 4.0.5", and I don't think it just imagined that. Photoshop only asks you if the image you give it has lost the colourspace info (or is not using your working colourspace). So some part of your workflow is losing it... and I blame Paint.Net 4.0.5! -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) The problem is that the English (as a my friend of Birmingham says) you live too much in the past. The image has been reworked in Photoshop to me says: Extended content Camera: Nikon D3200 Lens: 18 mm (Max aperture f/3.5) Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/6 sec, f/8, ISO 100, Compensation: -1 Flash: none Date: June 7, 2015 12:55:57PM (timezone not specified) (1 month, 28 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes, 34 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific) File: 3,325 × 5,748 JPEG (19.1 megapixels) 12,431,427 bytes (11.9 megabytes) and more: XMP Date Created 2015:06:07 12:55:57 1 month, 28 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes, 34 seconds ago XMP Toolkit Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c021 79.154911, 2013/10/29-11:47:16 Legacy IPTC Digest B8435B0C8E614A7BEE4983E25799EBF8 Color Mode RGB ICC Profile Name sRGB IEC61966-2.1 Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Modify Date 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00 9 minutes, 13 seconds ago Metadata Date 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00 9 minutes, 13 seconds ago Document ID F31F6912C8DE7EDEF87A2062BD07EB57 Instance ID xmp.iid:29ae66d2-5970-b04d-abbf-f7947db113e9 Original Document ID F31F6912C8DE7EDEF87A2062BD07EB57 Format image/jpeg History Action saved History Instance ID xmp.iid:29ae66d2-5970-b04d-abbf-f7947db113e9 History When 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00 9 minutes, 13 seconds ago History Software Agent Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) History Changed / Have a good day --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC) The problem, LivioAndronico, is that I really don't appreciate you lying. At the time I made my comment, the image had been edited in paint.net, hence the lack of colourspace. You replied "No Colin, just photoshop". Grow up a bit and stop lying. I can see it has been reworked twice since then; I'm not blind. This isn't the first time you've been dishonest when challenged. Stop it. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC) The problem Colin you do not like me and your opinion does not interest me. I explained to you and you do not want to understand (?) I reworked the image and you do not want to understand. How do I explain that your opinion does not give a damn? Your opinion to me is hot air, useless, empty words ... how to be more explicit? I do not know and do not care. Come down from the pedestal because you're not nothing for me.--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC) How said the great Johnny Rotten We don't care --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC) For your taste is better this --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Interesting and very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The crop has aliasing artifacts. And I don't understand the context of the crop. Is this really where the fresco ends? That seems very unlikely. If it isn't, then there should definitely be no oval crop there. — Julian H.^✈ 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the points about the crop are fair, and I'm even thinking about changing my vote as well. Why not providing an uncropped version, at least as an alternative ? We can always crop if we feel like it, but adding back the missing areas is not possible. - Benh (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because is the union of several photos without cropping would be like this,thanks (Tell me if you do not understand my English, because it is poor) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Or similar this ot this--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't take enough frames to generate a rectangular crop is something very easy to fix -- take it again properly. I don't see Diliff offering up diamond shaped church interiors or oval formal gardens simply because he misjudged how many photos were required. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Colin. Would you share how the uncropped version looks like? We might suggests alternatives crops, and as for me I think sometimes switching projection help getting a proper rop, and would like to see the feasibility before. - Benh (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose A sacrifice of the two little motives up and down seems necessary IMO, as some other painted details are already cropped left and right. An oval crop symmetric along the oval main fresco could maybe work better. Anyway, this one does not work for me as it is.--Jebulon (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I was considering, since I get some similar advice on ceiling not long ago, to put color around it, which is so wrong for me. In this case, because you want it oval, you put rectangular crop, maybe would work better. Put some alternative. --Mile (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support good idea, well done. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose switch my vote to oppose, per my above reasoning. - Benh (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I don´t understand the discussion, I even don´t want to understand it. PS or Paint.net. --Hubertl 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

•  Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)