Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wat Chedi Luang Assembly Hall, Chiang Mai, Thailand - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Wat Chedi Luang Assembly Hall, Chiang Mai, Thailand - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 18:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wat Chedi Luang
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Although this photo of Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai, Thailand is not one of my high resolution stitched interiors taken on a tripod (I didn't have the opportunity to use a tripod and I think it would probably be a bit disrespectful during a ceremony anyway), I think it has quite a lot of charm and is a well-composed and intimate portrait of a Theravada Buddhist ceremony. It was taken hand-held in very poor lighting (1/15th of a second at f/3.5 and ISO 2000). This is not an excuse, just an explanation, and I hope you can appreciate the compositional aspects of it if not the technical superiority, but please judge it as you want. :-) -- Diliff (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support but a little bit disturbing top. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting top foreground. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Given image, distraction is minor. -- Christian Ferrer 04:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Christian --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It can be resolved as handheld made. Hard task, maybe better described if you say i was more than one stop bellow limit (according to 1/f rule), f ans ISO itself are irrelevant. Not long ago, i put image with 2.5 stops bellow limit, which was very good, nobody show up, perhaps nobody did understand hardness to achieve it. All i get was minus and advice "Why dont you use tripod... you could ask for permission". I dont expect all could understand, but obviously even those who get the situation didnt say any word. --Mile (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Camera settings are not irrelevant here, they show that there was little I could do to adjust the settings for a better image because I was at the limit for aperture, shutter speed and ISO. I know it's not always possible to ask permission to use a tripod, and I wouldn't insist you must use one. I don't know that a tripod would be better in any case. These people were chanting, they were not completely still. A tripod would keep the building sharp, but it would completely fail to keep the monks sharp, only a fast shutter speed would do that, but a fast shutter speed was simply impossible in this room. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is the first time I'm opposing your picture, but this one undoubtedly has problems. These blurred triangles at the top are just too distracting. Cropping them would result in losing of a part of the altar, so I guess fixing this picture issues are impossible. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I just don't think the flags at the top are such an issue though. They are part of the building interior, yes they are out of focus but they are not so important that they must be sharp. I agree with you that cropping it is not the answer. I could use Photoshop to remove them perhaps, but I'm not sure it's needed. I'll have a think about it. Diliff (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it would look much better without them. If that is possible - try to remove them with photoshop. But is that really possible? Some of these flags are way too long and covers some parts of the altar fragments... -- Pofka (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There's no need to give the top foreground so much weight; most probably, the perspective would just have been impossible from a different position. What the picture mainly shows, the altar with the monks in front, is really impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Out of focus flags are distracting and have no purpose in the composition. I would remove them in post.--Fotoriety (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose And not the first time I've opposed one of David's images, although I think this is the first time I've done so where you nominated it yourself. The flags on top might not be a problem if they were the only issue. But frankly the monks, the putative subject of the image, are kind of dark and static, allowing the banners to distract from them. Perhaps if the image had been cropped to them ... but then you would have had to lose a lot of the backdrop. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this image could be achieved any other way to be honest. I could possibly have gotten a little bit closer to them which would have given me a view that avoided the flags completely, but the aperture was already very wide, I couldn't increase the exposure without the monks becoming motion blurred. I don't think the monks feel static though, they are very much 'alive'. Dark perhaps, but that's the point. It's a dark and intimate environment. There are a few beams of light reaching them from the outside but they are largely unlit. The two candles are bright enough to light the faces of the monks near them which gives you an idea of the luminosity of the room. I suppose I have a difference understanding of the scene, having been there. They were chanting at the time. I took a large number of photos of this scene because it was at the very edge of hand-holdability and most of the frames were a bit blurred, either from hand-shake or because the monks had moved slightly. The fact that I was able to capture everything reasonably sharply is a minor miracle in itself IMO. It just doesn't feel static at all to me. But I respect your oppose, I certainly wouldn't say you support all my images blindly either and I understand that some subjects are just inherently difficult to capture to FP level. Diliff (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who believe that Diliff's work would not be featured!!!  Oppose ... --Laitche (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't be the first Laitche. :-) I've had many fail before. Sometimes I nominate images that I think are more challenging (like this one) simply because I get a bit bored of nominating churches. And I think others get bored too. But I still think this one is better than some church interiors that have passed. Diliff (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you are forgetting that how you are talented! I think this work is not enough for your talent and the result is not all. I believe that you can still enjoy for every thing (yes, I got a bit bored of churches too...), church interiors are only the part of you :) --Laitche (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with the comments about the top crop. Furthermore, it is also a pity that the monks, are mostly in shadow resulting in an unbalanced picture to me. Poco2 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Wat_Chedi_Luang_Assembly_Hall,_Chiang_Mai,_Thailand_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=164322328"