Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapelle Notre-Dame aux Raisins BLS.jpg

File:Chapelle Notre-Dame aux Raisins BLS.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 21:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Little attempt while I'm still wandering around... I'm aware it's heavily processed, but I really wanted to enhance the dramatic mood. I also know my venerable 10-22 lens is soft on the corners, and that the three exposures don't overlap very nicely on moving objects (leafs, people). -- Benh (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective can be corrected without losing too much of the dramatic effect:

--Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it but I do prefer the original. Shot from a low angle with a u.w. lens I like to see some perspective distortion. Over correcting, like the second picture, looks unnatural to me. --Uberprutser (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As always, it is a pleasure to see your photography, which has the wow, but the technical flaws you point out yourself plus a quite noisy sky is too much of an issue for me. I would also appreciate a more faithful representation wrt processing (but I respect that you prefer it heavily processed). For me more a photo targeted at a 500px audience. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't correct the verticals, it really spoils it... my composition is on purpose : worm's view is dramatic, and the perspective lines lead your eye to the dramatic sky which enhances the effect even more. I was just trying to check how audience would react, as I'm on a "processing pictures" momentum. I'd like to point out that although it's heavily processed, the original picture already looked like that. HDR only help to brighten up the church (and again, I try to keep a natural look). I'll upload a pic for comparison if I think about it tonight (and I still have to fix the pont du gard picture as I promised). This is a recurring issue, but the noise (which is very small, but can be fixed) and overlapping issues won't be visible until scrutinized at 100%. Even large print would look nice. Similar FP candidates which were promoted before were all downsampled to 2mpix. - Benh (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please don’t"? If you do not want your work to be edited and re-published by others, why do you publish it under a free license which explicitly allows to do so? I did not overwrite any of your work, I just issued an alternative. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. My comment was more in an FPC context and "please don't alter the nomination" would be a better statement. This is not en:FPC where you can apply this kind of fix, because it's for the sake of encyclopeadic value. If this photo is to be promoted, I would like it to be because people like it the way I meant it. I think commons FPC is more a ground for that. Sorry for any misunderstanding (I do realise my english doesn't help). - Benh (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - \\// and no hard feelings :-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kreuzschnabel, the free licence requires that you "must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, if the Original Author’s honor or reputation is affected by my humble suggestion, I withdraw it of course. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Relieved that my reputation is safe now ;-) At least I'd have learnt something about the license. - Benh (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you going for something that might grace the cover of a gothic novel? If so, it isn't nearly dramatic enough. Possibly a strong crop on just the church would help. The trees, wall, path and colour all have a taming effect. The sky isn't particularly foreboding. I agree completely with Benh on the vertical "correction". This isn't an architectural shot and one simply can't correct verticals on a picture taken this close without introducing a ridiculous stretching effect. In terms of sharpness/megapixels, I have recently discovered the wiki software lets you create links to images at any size. So one could suggest that the image be "reviewed for sharpness" at a given size, while still uploading/nominating a larger image if desired. For example, it looks sharp at 50% reduction (2.5MP). At 66% reduction (4.4MP) it looks ok. While those sizes would be underwhelming for an architectural nomination, they might be sufficient for an image with enough wow. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with everything. Review size should be something automated, but this was discussed a lot already. You may be right for the framing affecting the effect. I've played a little with recroping and the results are interesting. Will think about it (but the picture doesn't seem to attract much interest anyways, so will be for myself :) ). - Benh (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To show how much the HDR processing differs from the single exposure shot : File:Chapelle Notre-Dame aux Raisins BLS single exposure.jpg. It's already quite underexposed on purpose. - Benh (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After to have see the single exposure shot, I think the HDR kill the dramatic effect in part because it's maybe a bit overdone -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One support other than from the nominator. But not seeing any chance to get featured. Close? J e e 09:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 08:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]