Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Julián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 62-64 HDR.jpg

File:Iglesia de San Julián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 62-64 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2022 at 21:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Church portal of St.Julian's Church, in Portuguese "Igreja de São Julião", located on the centric Praça de Bocage (town hall quare), Setúbal, Portugal. The church was originally built in the second half of the 13th century in medieval style and was rebuilt at the beginning of the 16th century by order of King Manuel I in Manueline style. In 1531 a strong earthquake struck Setúbal and the church was damaged; the building was considerably modified in Mannerist style and reinaugurated in 1570. The original church was almost completely destroyed by the Great Earthquake of 1755 and was greatly rebuilt and redecorated in the last third of the 18th century following the late Baroque style. From this stage date the general appearance of the façade, the inner wooden roof, the painted tiles, the main and lateral altarpieces and the main chapel. Today it is the main church (matriz) of the city classified as National Monument in 1910. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the interesting history. Very striking photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and excellent image quality Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't the door look better if lightened? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel to be the right person to answer that, rather the heritage responsible in the city council, but I consider the portal around the door much more interesting and ornamental (and probably worthy in terms of legacy) than the door itself. There is not much texture in the door, that's probably the reason why they didn't focus there, and the few features of the door are already subtle lit and can be perceived IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too dark, it might have helped to use a Maglite or similar, to put some additional light on the door. --A.Savin 19:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, not an option to me adding on my own any additional lighting to get some areas more lit. Please, assess the image the way it looks in reality. If I add a maglite by myself I could understand that some reviewers opposed because of manipulation. Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok so if you add flash, it's a manipulation? What about all the underwater pics you take with flash then? Benh (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different animal, Benh. If I light a scene underwater or push the luminance bar to the top during processing I'm not changing the composition. If I add a light to the door it does. That would be a change of the apperance, a change of the ornamental view of the portal. That's at least the way I see it. Poco a poco (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title leads me to conclude it's an HDR photo, so you have already manipulated reality haven't you? I downloaded your image then reduced shadows and highlights in Photoshop and I liked the result. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Alexander says below, it's the same. You are (quoting you) "adding additional lighting to get some areas more lit". As long as u don't par away too far from reality, it's fine in my view. Sometimes it even gets you closer to what your eyes can actually see. - Benh (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial light (be it the exterior illumination of a structure, flashlight of a camera, or anything else) is always a manipulation of reality, if you like. However I don't see any problem about it. --A.Savin 12:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451532 07:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, IMHO, adding a bit of dynamic range would help make this look less dark. Such an alteration should be acceptable. It's just my opinion and I'm not necessarily right. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has sort of a horror-movie quality to it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. -- Karelj (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Doors