Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg

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

File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 09:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

West facade of St Castor, Koblenz
I guess this contra is because Schaengel is miffed because I have replaced his one File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Basilika St Kastor 02.jpg (discussion about that, (only in German)). Very sad and poor that Schaengel has no objective arguments concerning the photographic aspects but only act personal and offended. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infact Schaengel,can you explain the reasons for your opposition? Here we motivate our judgments, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 15:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he is not willing to answer, he also reverted my statement. So he just gives his emotions full scope. --84.174.235.23 15:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Forgotten to login --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The colour of the church doesn´t match with the original. It is over processed. --Schaengel (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intense colour is due to evening sunset light. What exactly is overprocessed in your opinion? --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me it does not seem Schaengel, however, can you give me an example of photos of the same subject not overprocessed? Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the church looks like in real File:Castorkirche in Koblenz.jpg. Taking the photo at the wrong time, with the wrong sun light, is also a cause for a contra. --Schaengel (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok Schaengel,thanks for your explain --LivioAndronico talk 20:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is sun light here the wrong time? Your advise on this candidate was exactly to take this image at morning sunset. So why is intense light for Koblenz Panorama okay but not for an building? I can assure that there is not falsification of the building colours. Schaengels arguments has obviously other motivations. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. very funny indeed is "wrong sun light". I guess correct sun light can only be captured by Schaengel himself.[reply]
 Info Schaengel reverts all replacements in all wikipedias worldwide. He seem to declares articels of Koblenz to his property because he is living there. His comprehension of perfect illustration to the Basilica of St. Castor seems to look like this. Images (File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_01.jpg and File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_02.jpg) with poor sharpness, distorted towers and disturbing elements in the foreground seem to meet his appreciation of quality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact, I have put some vertical and horizontal lines to proof this. Please consider, that this building is really old and not everything is 100% straight. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I thought so! The building is old and not everything is straight there, but your photo is. Congratulations! --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier sun would have the consequence of hard shadow which is often criticized other way. The little perspective correction will be corrected soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • temp.  Oppose distorted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The sky is brighter near the roof and the trees, causing the appearance of a subtle "glow" which is distracting and especially noticeable at smaller sizes or thumbnails. This is probably the consequence of some kind of tone mapping or "details" slider in Adobe raw converter. I don't that is necessary here since the dynamic range in the scene is not that big and the photo is very sharp anyway. Dllu (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I can't detect the effect of glowing as a disturbing element. The image is not a HDR but has simply got an adjustment of the color curve. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Actually it is a thin cloud in the sky behind the left tower. It also somewhat distracted me when I saw the picture for the first time. At first glance it resembles a halo that may be caused by image processing. --Blutgretchen (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I'm not talking about the thin cloud; I can see it around the right tower too, as well as near the trees. (I also checked the colours with GIMP to make sure my eyes aren't tricking me) Anyway, it is not a big deal at all, and it is not grounds for opposing. dllu (t,c) 00:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I adjusted the brightness and contrast and used the threshold tool to more clearly show the effect: [1][2][3] As I said, it is not a big deal, just distracting to some people (like me). dllu (t,c) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 16:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Koblenz_-_Basilika_St._Kastor_Westfassade.jpg&oldid=163831365"