Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viborg Katedralskole Symmetrical.jpg

File:Viborg_Katedralskole_Symmetrical.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work, beautiful light. I like the silence of the photo - everything seems to be at the right place and rests in itself. -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The sky is too diffused. And what are the shadows in front? --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review, Tremonist. The shadows in the front are from recently pruned trees in the low hanging morning sun, similar to what you see in the background at the sides. The school is surrounded with such trees. Personally, I think they help guide the eye towards the main subject, but that is of course a matter of taste. I do not quite understand your comment about the diffuse sky, I am afraid. I think it is rather visually attractive. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your comment and for the explanation. There are too many pixels visible in the clouds I think. --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for this nomination, Tuxyso! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the goemetry does it -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both sides are leaning in Poco² 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Poco a poco: Well spotted! I also noticed some dust spots, which are best removed from the source images in Lightroom prior to export to PTGui. I think I will rework the whole thing, and add some vertical control lines. Hold on, processing... -- Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Poco a poco: Perspective corrected, dust spot removed. Tremonist: Look again: I have remorked the sky a bit. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Support Poco² 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, too! Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid --LivioAndronico talk 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I spotted a little moire, that should be simple to remove with your brush. -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin: Done Well spotted and thanks for the advice. I have never tried to fix Moiré patterns before with the adjustment brush in Lightroom, but that worked like a charm. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These black lines on the grass are way too distracting. The quality and resolution is great. But not the timing of the shot. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little too dark for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Pofka. Could be improved with a crop. Yann (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann: : I actually do not think this picture can be improved by a crop below; it will become unbalanced. It is very carefully and deliberately cropped exactly as shown here. The time-of-day could be chosen slightly better though such that the shadows of the pruned trees would not protrude as far into the frame while still having only minor parts of the visible building facades in shadow and not having too harsh light. I come by this place quite often and found that this particular morning the light was good. But of course one can always do better .-- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am using dual monitor, when I look at this with DELL U2412M the colors are good, but when I look at this with DELL U2413 (which is available sRGB 100%) the colors are faded. --Laitche (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laitche: : Hmm, I think that is very strange. As far as I know those are quite good monitors. I have used an sRGB workflow in the entire process in camera, Lightroom and PTGui, and I also note that sRGB is indicated as color space in the EXIF. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Slaunger: How is your monitor setting(mode)? I did wrong setting with U2413 two years ago. --Laitche (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Laitche My monitor is currently my weakest spot in my image process. It is not calibrated, it is resonably good though, and much better than the ones I have at my office. A Dell Ultrasharp is on my wishlist. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Slaunger Umm, Colin did not say anything about the colors above so maybe my over-thinking. --Laitche (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Laitche: , The exif tool warns that although the file is tagged sRGB it lacks a colour profile. Slaugner, could you ensure Lightroom saves this profile data too. It usually does this just fine, and generally I only see out-of-camera JPGs lacking profiles (or if someone uses GIMP or Paint). Contact me if you like -- I recommend Jeffrey Friedl's Lightroom plugins such as the CC and MetadataWrangler to adjust what is saved. Without a profile, even though the image is correctly tagged, all browsers are pretty dumb about handling the mapping from image colour space to monitor colour space. But in a dual monitor setup, Laitche, if you have one monitor that is wide gamut and one that is standard sRGB gamut, then you are going to see colour saturation differences no matter what people do. The only software that I'm aware of that handles different monitor profiles is Lightroom/Photoshop. No browser handles it -- it just uses the profile for your primary monitor. I've got a calibrated wide-gamut monitor. The grass isn't very saturated, I must admit, but perhaps that's how it was, and the rest looks ok. Perhaps it does look nicer with a saturation boost? Contact me on my talk page to discuss your setup more if you like. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Colin: I didn't see the exif tool since color space of EXIF is sRGB, thank you always. @Slaunger: I agree with Colin, maybe saturation boost would be nicer for this image. --Laitche (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it would look nicer with saturation boost, I just speculated. Other than the grass, I'm not sure that increasing the saturation would improve the image, as the roof and sky are just fine. The grass isn't really the subject. -- Colin (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood because of my bad English skill, but also the sky looks a kind of under-saturation (when only see with U2413 which must show correct color now) for me... --Laitche (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Disturbing shadows. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture