Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo al Corso (Rome) - First Left chapel ceiling.jpg

File:San Carlo al Corso (Rome) - First Left chapel ceiling.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 08:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question The top looks overexposed, compared to the bottom. Can you fix it? Yann (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann, thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but others have a point about the saturation. Yann (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, but very unrealistic colours. Quality average, why is it one of our finest interior images?--ArildV (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ArildV but for me your comment is no sense. Average quality? I don't think and why is a "finest interior image"? I answer you in the same way....Why this questions?--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP should be our finest images. Therefore my question. I gave you an opportunity to explain why this image is one of our finest images. We have thousands of interior QI. Compared to the average IQ: the colors are worse (unrealistic, incorrect white balance, strange blue colour), level of detail and sharpness are average, composition is average and simple. Therefore my question, why is it one of our finest interior images?--ArildV (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the quality (or IQ if you prefer) is very good and the colors are these,the WB is ok. No sense. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good is just empty words. What is very good here and what is better than a average QI? Sharpness (not very good, soft corners and borders), level of details (average, soft corners and borders), composition (average, improvable), lightning (average, not to bad for a old church but improvable with for example exposure fusion). Therefore my question, why is it one of our finest interior images?--ArildV (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a your opinion,for me is very good (sharpness ecc I think that here there are photographers and should not explain every comma). --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course you do not be offended is just an exchange of ideas nothing personal--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental difference between explain every comma and asking the most basic and elementary question, why is it a FP?. Anyway, I only ask to give you an opportunity to explain why this image is one of our finest images. Very good is not a convincing answer.--ArildV (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me yep --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Arild; also uneven lighting and crops. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the crop? Try to explain because for me is good,thanx --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The top is more cropped than the bottom, for one thing. That's a little jarring. Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per ArildV. One can also see in the two versions that the saturation slider had been moved over to the max. Come one, Livio, show some respect. Your efforts have zero educational value if you crudely alter the images to suit your taste. These aren't cartoons and you can't restore them to "as painted" colours with a few Lightroom sliders. -- Colin (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Also, don't use AdobeRGB on the internet. -- Colin (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but in this case, I have to oppose as Colin, Daniel and ArildV. They are absolutely right. We don´t just have to nominate the best, also the best we can do by ourself. With this picture, Livio, you haven´t really maxed out your own skills and potential. --Hubertl 09:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]