Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Intern.jpg

File:San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Intern.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 19:36:24 (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) 19:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Firebrace (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too distorted. Compare to File:S Giacomo in Augusta - interno 1230637.JPG. The problem here is the vertical angle of view is huge and compounded by the common problem that the point-of-view is very near the floor and taken too far forward. Thus in order to "correct" the vertical perspective, the upper portions get stretched to appear many times larger than they are. There are limits to what a rectilinear projection can comfortably manage, in terms of angle-of-view, and this exceeds it. As Diliff noted in another nom, the composition does not have enough floor-level and is cropped at knee height. Perhaps another time-of-day would produce more even lighting from left/right -- here one side is in shadow and the other side has too much. I suppose, however, we should be grateful you didn't nominate this, though quite what that abomination is doing on Commons I don't know :-). -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the distortion (or perhaps because of it) the processing seems to have mishandled the light on the right side, by pushing a curve too far into midtones (it's almost gray in some areas). Also look at the statue in the alcove high up ... it is very waxy and unreal-looking. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per above.--ArildV (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]