Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 159-161 HDR.JPG

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 159-161 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 12:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 159-161 HDR.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 159-161 HDR.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Nice ceiling! More good pictures from South America! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you Arion! I've made some slight perspective adjustments Poco² 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Weak Oppose. It just seems like it's a bit overexposed and oversaturated to me. I see that HDR was used and I know from experience that gold is a tricky thing to photography but large areas of the image just don't look that good to me, like sharpness at the edges (which does matter a lot on this image unlike the below image), the borders of the windows and the blown highlights on the gold. I just think if you're going to do HDR, you should at least ensure that the highlights are not blown. What HDR tone mapping processing was used? Diliff (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral based on the new edit. Not enough to oppose, not enough to support. Diliff (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  David: I have uploaded a new version with a colder WB, and also reworked the exposure. For HDR I used LR6 and regardind sharpness I am not so sure in this case, to me it looks distorted, but not lacking sharpness. Poco² 15:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The new version is an improvement. There's still a bit of overexposure in the gold highlights but I suppose this shows the reflection of light (gold leaf is quite reflective) so it's acceptable (if not understandable) to be slightly blown, although in an ideal world it would still have some detail in it. Was your darkest exposure able to capture the details in the gold highlights? If so, it could probably be recovered further. You could try using the adjustment brush to paint a negative highlights value over the gold area, so it only affects that without also affecting the rest of the image. As for the sharpness, it's not just distorted. There's also a loss of resolution/sharpness at the edges. The effect is similar to motion blur as there's less spatial resolution on the horizontal axis, a bit like you've moved the camera horizontally, but it cannot be motion blur since the centre is sharp. I suppose it's relatively minor given the total resolution and the angle of view (my wide angle images are also softer at the edges, although they are often the equivalent of 9-11mm focal lengths so it's more expected). It's just the typical result of a wide angle zoom lens. They just aren't quite as sharp as primes, especially at the edges. Diliff (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Diliff --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think it's an incredible ceiling. Technically it's certainly not worse than the other recently promoted ceilings. It sure looks a bit yellowish (too saturated again?) but Poco knows better than us. - Benh (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the proof of trust, I tried to make it cooler and it doesn't look the way I recall it and whites start also getting blueish, therefore I think that the current colors are pretty realistic Poco² 20:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  As I suggested above though, you don't have to apply global white balance changes, you can apply adjustment brush white balance so that the whites don't start getting blueish. Or alternatively, you can apply global white balance changes, and then apply warmer white balance adjustment brushes to the parts that start to look too blueish. There are many ways of approaching it so that you get the right colours in different parts of the image. It's really the only way to do it properly when there are multiple light sources (cool light from outside and warm light from incandescent interior lighting). Diliff (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support For me is good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I'm sufficiently wowed. Minor technical shortcomings don't matter. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 12:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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