Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:0118 GER Kiel St Nikolai crucifix.jpg

File:0118 GER Kiel St Nikolai crucifix.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2022 at 13:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:0118 GER Kiel St Nikolai crucifix.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:0118 GER Kiel St Nikolai crucifix.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
•  Info the mix of natural ( muted due to construction works) and artifical light combined with the frog perspective enhancing the features and ornaments of the cross - all by Virtual-Pano -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Virtual-Pano (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment A daring and refreshing way to depict a crucifix. I want to support it, but I am unsure about the level of noise removal; it seems a bit strong, making the corpus of Christ look a bit like plastic and damaging also the pattern on the ceiling behind it. How would the photo look with less noise removal? --Aristeas (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral exactly per Aristeas. Original idea and I like looking up at the crucifix, not something you see too often. But too much noise reduction for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Info Aristeas & Cmao20- Noise reduction has not been applied at all. As for the strange ceiling structure and 'shiny' body surfaces, please compare with any other picture of this cruxifix as they show the same in these respects, imho.
    Here is my workflow on this picture:
    1st) cropping and perspective correction before uploading he first version of this frame
    2nd) saturation reduction for pillars and ceiling only
    3rd) mild sharpening of the very bottom carvings. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    •  Support Thank you very much, Virtual-Pano, for your detailed answer! Well, the ‘shiny’ surface of the corpus etc. did look exactly as the results of strong noise reduction, therefore my comment. But when this is just how things are in reality, I am happy to support. — BTW: This is one of the most interesting contributions to WLM Germany in this year which I have seen so far, congrats! --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose There's something to the contrast between the warm tones of the crucifix and stark white of the background. However, while I appreciate experimenting with perspective, the composition doesn't work for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excessive angle in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not good angle of photo view, per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Although the unusual angle of view, to which I am getting more and more used, this is a harmonious composition that I like also for the warm lighting mood of the crucifix in clear contrast to the vault of the church. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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