Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jesuit smelter.jpg

File:Jesuit smelter.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 02:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a number of dust spots in the sky, on both sides. --Cayambe (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks fine to me (a bit tight crop, however) --McIntosh Natura (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very high quality, but crop too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{neutral}}~~ Per The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lycaon, would you be kind enough as to give us a dissertation as to what constitutes "unfortunate lighting conditions?." I chose that particular angle just because of the lighting conditions. You see, a fully lit subject generally is flat, which would have been the case had I taken the picture from the other side, so from this perspective, the lighting creates what in photography is called "volume", thus creating the visual illusion of 3d.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe you can try again. It is a stationary object isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That´s no explanation as to what constitutes "unfortunate lighting conditions." That statement si so vague... Please enlighten us. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think his problem is that the front of the building is entirely in shadow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice picture with a great encyclopedic value. I agree with you about the flatness of fully lit subjects. But when the major part (including the whole front!) of the subject remains in a rather dark shadow, that's far too much: on that point Lycaon is right when he is talking about "unfortunate lighting conditions". -- MJJR (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues here: 1) The object itself. An interesting smelter built by the Jesuits 400 years ago in a rich mining area in the state of Guanajuato, source of huge amounts of gold and silver during the colony. 2) Photographic technique. a) Exposure renders all areas in acceptable dynamic and texture ranges. b) DoF enough to give acceptable focus across the frame. c) Composition. I framed it tightly in order to depict just the subject matter. Here people are free to like it or not. d) Point of view. I chose this point of view deliveratley in order to have a diagonal perspective, and take advantage of graphic elements of photography such as countour, perspective, volume and texture. Interesting subject? For some, yes. Pretty subject? If you are a mining or structural engineer, historian, or academic, perhaps. If you are into video games, perhaps not. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now, if you really want to compare: [[1]] (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your other version look much more better [2]. May-be applying some masks to the dark (shadow) area and adding more light can enhance your image. Or if you travel-visit again this place.. try more images stitched together to panorama.. the dry landscape around seems to be interesting. Ggia (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to make some enhancements and I uploaded as an alternative version. Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support overexposed here, underexposed there.. =\ --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. The shade covers the front of the object--Miguel Bugallo 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support more sky to the top (regarding comments by McIntosh Natura & The High Fin Sperm Whale), more light to the dark areas, several correction masks has been applied to the image. I hope that also the nominator likes these enhancements. Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ggia! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The contrast is better, but some DOF issues, like the cacti to the left. Both are pretty eye-catching though and the angle's ok. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. The shade covers the front of the object--Miguel Bugallo 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely better! -- MJJR (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very good lighting. --Karelj (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better than the original, but lighting is still not the best -- Gorgo (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I think the crop is still too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting per Miguel; the front of the subject should be lit instead of the back. It would also look nice to have more of the smelter's surroundings composed into the shot. LeavXC (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]