Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Paolo alla Regola (Rome) - interior.jpg

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

File:San Paolo alla Regola (Rome) - interior.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 14:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Paolo alla Regola (Rome) - interior
 Underexposed Please could you more e++? --The Photographer (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pofka I thank you for the support you gave me in other photos, but as I say you thank you, I say you that the way to express how horrible, terrible or disgusting honestly isn't fine for me. Now, I understand that the photos you do not like it and accept it calmly but never ever allowed myself to use words such as horrible or terrible against others. For me it is not respectful to their work, in fact I also ask sorry when I oppose because I understand that there are expectations that are broken and I'm sorry, I'm sorry also because certainly c 'is behind the work (for example, I've been waiting for this photo 3 hours when the church was empty). Returning to the photos, I chose a more low to change, because the ceiling was white and nothing interesting for me and because I liked the prospect of desks lined up, may not like it and understand it but I honestly do not think that this merits the photo 'adjective "horrible". Sorry for the outburst but was just to clarify. --LivioAndronico talk 19:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LivioAndronico I'm sorry if I insulted you by using word "horrible", but that's what exactly came up to my mind back then just because of disappointment when I saw these parts I noted. Not the picture is horrible, but these small parts of it. The overall quality of it is fine, even though the details aren't that perfectly visible as in Diliff ones, but the color palette is pleasant (it seems you're really good at capturing pleasant colors). Still, such crop ruins it for me. You did similar shot much better here, for example. You mentioned that the ceiling is white, but you cropped like 20% of that green-yellow dome above altar. Columns decorations were cropped as well. In my opinion, these parts are way more important than benches. -- Pofka (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: Please be careful when using your words, remember that this is a job for someone who deserves respect. This is an international community in which for some of us, like me, English is not their native language. I invite you to not use insulting and offensive language, especially in nominations of images, there is no reason to speak well of someone. I may not be the best example, I myself have sometimes insulted someone in commons, however, not in these sections (QIC,FPC,VIC), so I am not without sin, however, must learn to control your emotions and learn to apologize openly and honestly. --The Photographer (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's cropped, that's the main problem. Besides that, picture quality is good as usual. --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, the lack of sharpness (in the whole picture), the flair on the left just a weird reflex actually, and overexposure, the celling cut, the dust... the low position plus the angle (the lack of sharpness also) do not allow us to read the text on the floor, I don't know why the left side is yellow, it's because of window? The celling out of the picture do not tells us the whole history. At least the noisy is not heavy here, hooray. (see notes for some details)-- RTA 05:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the note about the dust. Yeah, I now, but you should bracketing a better exposure, and you can recover a lit bit from your raw file, I could using jpeg [1]. -- RTA 09:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:San_Paolo_alla_Regola_(Rome)_-_interior.jpg&oldid=162908631"