Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:St. Mariä Himmelfahrt 2022-08-21 Hochaltar.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 17:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by 2015 Michael 2015 - uploaded by 2015 Michael 2015 - nominated by 2015 Michael 2015 -- 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support -- 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose too far of the standard for a FPC, nor QIC, too noise and unsharp, sorry --Ezarateesteban 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot see your complains ... Have you downloaded the pic and opened it with some dedicated viewer and then watched it at 1:1? If no: At least my browser shows it at zoom unsharp but even with the browser the noise (chroma and luminance) level is not anyhow bad. 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ezarate. FPC is not about "not bad"; photos of church interiors that we feature are much sharper than this, because they have to be among the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment +1. While this is not a bad picture admittedly, photos which are “not bad” are taken care of at QI or VI. Here in FP it’s about excellence, about outstandingly fine images, the best of the best, and I cannot see this here. Too noisy, not quite sharp for a still object, counterlight not handled properly (mostly the blueish spots behind the top part of the altar), verticals are leaning in. Have a look at Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings to get an idea what kind of pictures you are in competition with. Then, lacking metadata – Exif, geolocation and so on – is a minus as well. --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel "QI or VI" don't know what it means, there are much too much abbreviations in use at Wiki* | As mentioned "Too noisy, not quite sharp" is not my impression, else I would not have nominated it. | "verticals are leaning in" yes this is a minus | "Then, lacking metadata – Exif, ... so on – is a minus as well." The used HW and its settings are important for a picture (evaluation)? This is in my view wrong, i.e. almost none of my pictures get those data. | Thank you for the link, I would withdraw my photo if there is some method to do so. 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Quality Images and Commons:Valued Images. As for “not my impression” – when nominating a picture here, you are asking for other’s opinions on it, and that’s exactly what you got. If you just want your opinions confirmed, don’t put your picture up for evaluation. --Kreuzschnabel 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel "QI or VI" don't know what it means, there are much too much abbreviations in use at Wiki* | As mentioned "Too noisy, not quite sharp" is not my impression, else I would not have nominated it. | "verticals are leaning in" yes this is a minus | "Then, lacking metadata – Exif, ... so on – is a minus as well." The used HW and its settings are important for a picture (evaluation)? This is in my view wrong, i.e. almost none of my pictures get those data. | Thank you for the link, I would withdraw my photo if there is some method to do so. 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
