Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita del Viernes, Shamakhi, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 22-36 HDR PAN.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2016 at 10:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Panoramic night view of the Juma (Friday) Mosque, Shamakhi, Azerbaijan. This mosque, built in 743, is considered the first one in the Caucasus after the Friday mosque of Derbent (constructed in 734). It was built during the governance period of Caliphate's vicar in the Caucasus and Dagestan. The mosque underwent numerous damages due to plunderings, earthquakes and wars and was lately reconstructed in 2009. All by me, Poco2 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Support even though sides are leaning in. Can you change this please. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Question What software did you use to create this stitch and what projection? The verticals on the left aren't perfect, but not huge problem given the overall size. The image lacks a dark blue sky which makes all that black a little strong. It looks good converted to b&w, perhaps better, as one can concentrate on the patterns, form and light. Not sure how to vote yet but certainly lots of wow. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Colin: I used Lr and it is an spherical panorama. I
improved the verticals on the left. Regarding sky color, sorry, cannot offer a blue hour sky but prefer this version to b&w, specially after the WB adjustment Poco2 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah. I've not been impressed with LR panorama other than for trivial landscape stitches. It isn't accurate or configurable enough for architecture imo. And the HDR support is a joke. I'd be interested to see what this looked like if processed by PtGui/LR. Contact me if you would like me to try. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Colin, I also use mylsef PTGui Pro, when the results with Lr are not satisfactory in my eyes. Lr gets the task done though IMHO in 90% of the cases Poco2 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ah. I've not been impressed with LR panorama other than for trivial landscape stitches. It isn't accurate or configurable enough for architecture imo. And the HDR support is a joke. I'd be interested to see what this looked like if processed by PtGui/LR. Contact me if you would like me to try. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment The towers have double contour (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ivar:
Fringes reduced Poco2 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ivar:
Support - Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Support More beautiful mosques. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
*.
Oppose Very noisy, banding and some strange artefact (see note). Put some +EV and lower temp a bit. --Mile (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. Otherwise, could be central if you are hitting it
Support Better now. I havent seen so big flare till now. --Mile (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- That strange artifact, Mile, was nothing else but a flare, it is gone now. I also
reduced the noise level and retouched the WB Poco2 20:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- That strange artifact, Mile, was nothing else but a flare, it is gone now. I also
Support lNeverCry 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Neutral per issue noted by Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel Case I actually addressed the issue mentioned by Uoaei1 in the version of October 6th 20:44h I checked the verticals again and they look fine to me. Can you please add a note if you see any issues here? Poco2 10:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Nice one. --Code (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Support --Karelj (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Being a pedantic I have to point out that with vertical control points in PTGui you could have achieved slightly better vertical alignment, but still, this is a great picture of a noteworthy subject. Very good exposure control. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Excellent image, however, pixelation cut problem in columns (see note) --The Photographer 22:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer: I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "pixelation cut problem". I assume you meant slight frindges around the towers. Well, I've removed them (pixel level editing) but would be suprised that that was the reason to oppose this 50MPx picture Poco2 10:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The size is excellent, however, it's like buy a big house located in a bad zone, I preffer a small house well built in a exclusive area. The problem with supersize images is that it's easy make mistakes, in this case the problem of frindges is almost fixed, however, now I can see some like a red aura (See note). BTW, buy a expensive camera with a supersize megapixel sensor not make you automatically a good photographer and similarly to have a excellent subject like this building in front of you not make automatically a FP picture. You have continually improved your quality as a photographer and increasingly difficult to find a problem in your images. --The Photographer 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer, we're here to decide if an image is among the finest on Commons. Exactly who took the picture, how experienced they are, what equipment and techniques they used, are irrelevant to that judgement (though of course they may all be factors that lead to the flaws(s) or success(es) in the final image). It isn't about trying to 'find a problem in [Poco's] images". -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The size and image quality is important and is what I was telling him, however, more importan than the size is the tecnique used (composition, lens corrections, noise corrections, manual elements like DoF and light), a good example of what I'm telling him is the bad practice is downsize images to hide a wrong tecnique. It not was a personal comment to Poco and I admit that it seemed, however, as he is my friend I feel I can criticize him a bit more. I am usually more severe in my criticisms with Poco, Diliff and you because you are on another level and is not only photos also there are people behind the lens. --The Photographer 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer, we're here to decide if an image is among the finest on Commons. Exactly who took the picture, how experienced they are, what equipment and techniques they used, are irrelevant to that judgement (though of course they may all be factors that lead to the flaws(s) or success(es) in the final image). It isn't about trying to 'find a problem in [Poco's] images". -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The size is excellent, however, it's like buy a big house located in a bad zone, I preffer a small house well built in a exclusive area. The problem with supersize images is that it's easy make mistakes, in this case the problem of frindges is almost fixed, however, now I can see some like a red aura (See note). BTW, buy a expensive camera with a supersize megapixel sensor not make you automatically a good photographer and similarly to have a excellent subject like this building in front of you not make automatically a FP picture. You have continually improved your quality as a photographer and increasingly difficult to find a problem in your images. --The Photographer 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings