Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Romanesque portal church Notre-Dame Avy Charente Maritime.jpg

File:Romanesque portal church Notre-Dame Avy Charente Maritime.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 22:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The romanesque portal (1175) of the church Notre-Dame of Avy, Charente-Maritime, France. Please have a look to the strange and delicate reliefs of the archivolt. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting art, nice picture. Yann (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject itself is interesting, but the crop at the right is unfortunate (I think a square crop would work better) and the sharpness is not overwhelming. I would also prefer a "flat" photo taken from directly opposite (if you know what I mean). The light is quite dull, too, but this may be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I try to figure what bring so strange WB in your shots, with other unwanted characteristics. I did have to check camera on Dpreview. Its not state-of-art but I think that "non state-of-art" is paired with another "non" - tourist walkaround lens 18-250 mm. I find WB and sharpness huge issue on your photos, despite you put "sharp" mode sharpness its barely acceptable for me, but not as FP. Its not issue just here, on most of your shots. Some better lens perhaps. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and comment. I don't think there is any WB issue here, but not excellent lighting conditions against the usual dictatorship of blue sky and evening light (rainy weather and yes, dull light in this case), and I disagree with your "huge" opinion about sharpness, which is not so bad IMO. Of course my material is not up-to-date though, but even if I'm not a professional, I've got some successes here with that lense...--Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see much wrong with the image, from a camera/lens point-of-view. Many images at FPC are downsampled (and stitched) so perhaps we expect too much and need to remember what a regular out-of-camera photo looks like. It may be a travel-super-zoom, but at f/8 most lenses are pretty sharp in the middle, which is where the subject is here. I hope full-frame + Zeiss or Sigma Art prime isn't essential equipment any time soon. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you, Colin, Two "offenders" here. The bad weather, and...your servant. I don't think the lens is in cause.--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light conditions were not favorable. --Ivar (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like composition and photo. --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but lacks the spark needed for FP (such as special light or an interesting person). -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you did not find it...--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose per Colin. Something's just missing for me (And no, not the obvious). Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all for reviews (pro and con). I meet the majority here, this is not a good FP candidate (light -not my fault- and sharpness -my fault-).--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]