Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of cappella sacripante in Sant'Ignazio (Rome) HDR.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 15:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Support The wow makes it, the quality is improveable. --Hubertl 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Livio, I'm going to be rough, but you need to learn how to process pictures. I'm trying my best to give you advices, and I know that language is a barrier between us (english is not a natural language for any of us). This picture has wow, but has obvious CA. I personally can spend several days on a picture alone, just to remove artifacts, so while I don't mean that I set standard, IMO you should make some efforts. CA is easy fix in LR which has the calibration for your camera + body. You're just a checkbox away from a much cleaner work. Again, you don't really need to constantly have two active noms, and should take a little more time in processing your pictures. On the other nom, which I'm about to look at the RAWs, it should be a matter of playing with WB slider only. Back to this picture, it's also too dark. And while the ray is definitely a central part of the composition, the paintings are as important and should be exposed properly (and not cut in the corners) . - Benh (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Remove CA,anyway If a photo you do not like (to you or others) put your vote and that's fine. Do not make me the lecture, I have two pictures in FP? If the rules allow it,I do it. Do You must give me your advice? No. Maybe your advice not believe them interesting or useful. So put your vote and not make a Dramma. Thank you. --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- It really upsets me that you take it that way. All I want is you're autonomous. Given your throughput, you can't seriously expect someone to process pictures for you most time. And what upsets me even more is that all issues I find on your picture are easy fixes which makes me feel you're only after FP stars and not actually improving your pictures. I'm not the only one to have warned you. Now if you don't want the discuss, I can play it that way too. - Benh (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a job for you while for me is just for fun. That's all --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose IMO, this kind of picture should be perfectly centered, this is not the case. A FP candidate should be seriously categorized, this is not the case. It should be geocoded too... I don't hesitate to support when I'm convinced, but without any drama, it is not possible here. Maybe next time ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I have genuine image-based reasons, but I'm not going to waste my time typing them in only to get insults back. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment If LivioAndronico wants continue participating here, here can start by apologizing to Benh. Further such rudeness and I shall be asking for him to be permanently banned from FPC. This is a forum where real human beings participate, not some online game collecting tokens. Many editors have given image taking/processing advice and many editors have spent time helping LivioAndronico process his images and earn him FP stars. Yet those editors are insulted and get upset. I don't believe that image contributions should excuse bad behaviour to the point where the community turns a blind eye. This has become a persistent pattern, and no user should have to put up with this kind of abuse by another user who is just here "for fun" and not to engage respectfully with others, make friends and learn. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, and you have a lot of friends here. I have not insulted anyone and therefore I make no apologies. It's not that you have to accept the advice if you do not find interesting or useful! Anyway go ahead ...--LivioAndronico (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Per Benh. And I also have to agree with Colin in every word he says above. --Code (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Support It is impressive, even if there were some tiny flaws. The light beams come in nicely. --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I think the light beams are minus factor in this angle. --Laitche (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Since it seems to be agreed that the crepuscular rays (something we do not get in many church ceiling shots) are the real subject of the image, I'm OK with the lack of centeredness and the uneven exposure (which could be a lot worse). Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Daniel, at least someone understood my picture, now I'm happy--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per others. -- -donald- (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)