Commons:Valued image candidates/Kościół św. Jakuba w Raciborzu 5.JPG

Kościół św. Jakuba w Raciborzu 5.JPG

promoted
Image  
Nominated by Halavar (talk) on 2013-09-28 09:15 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saint James church in Racibórz, Poland. Facade.
Used in

Global usage

pl:Kościół św. Jakuba w Raciborzu
Review
(criteria)

  Comment Perspective distortion and unrealistic colors --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with you. I made lots of pictures of this church few months ago and also yesterday, and this church has got these colors when it is a sunny day. I think you don't like my pictures because I'm using polarizing filter. And because of this contrast and colors are better. The other thing - there are 6 Valued Image criteria and very good technical quality of the pictures is not the most important. Halavar (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment It is strongly advised not to use polarizing filter. It distorts the colors. Here the cloud must be white are blue and the front painted white is red. The polarisanst filters are advised to remove undesirable reflections. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)   Comment So it looks that, even if my photos match all 6 criteria of Valued Images, you will never approve my photos because I'm using polarizing filter and also my pictures are not perfect as Quality images standards... Well, I think it is not fair. There are 6 Valued Images criteria and we should comply with those criteria. Halavar (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Does not meet the third criteria. The colors are not what you see, the building is not tilted. A desaturation is possible. Perspective correction is also possible. If you do not master these two points I'm ready to work with you for you to learn. --   Comment You are wrong - picture met all 6 criteria. Please read again the Criteria no. 3 Commons:Valued image criteria. I think that you don't remember those criteria... Halavar (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Info I uploaded new version of picture with reduced saturation. Halavar (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is better. Now just straighten the walls. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)   Info I uploaded new version. Now I think it is better. If not, I give up. For me it is good and more importantly image met all 6 criteria. We shouldn't ignore them. Halavar (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a corrected version of your image, you can keep it or remove it if you want. Whatever you choose I vote favorably because you understand the principle and you make a real effort.
  •   Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment It should also, a caption in English. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)   Done English description added. Halavar (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
[reply]