Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia.jpg

File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 20:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It has lovely color-play. I really like that warm light coming from the altar, however isn't its a bit too dark at parts? Benches are barely visible. I still like the view and will stay with neutral here and let others decide. Difficult to select between support and oppose. Lovely detail, composition, but colors are a bit lacking for me. -- Pofka (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In these photos you have to find a middle ground, both among the lights of the altar (very clear and the rest of the church dark) and between the roof and the base of the church, if I put more in evidence the benches I would not take well roof, or vice versa, a little bit of all, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Diliff approach works... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a QI. Quite soft overall and the stained glass is blown. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks --LivioAndronico talk 12:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LivioAndronico: the gaussian blur (softness) ist still too much. Why??? Please rework it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. better or worse than before?--LivioAndronico talk 12:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neither both ... try to rework your image without "blur", for more sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LivioAndronico, the overall softness is not fixed by cranking the sharpening/clarity filter over to the max, nor is a completely blown window recovered by reducing white so that the bright-outside is merely off-white. The adjustment you made is terrible. The original picture was only QI but now it wouldn't even merit that. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the first version Alchemist-hp,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cold colors, and boring composition. I would get a bigger tripod if I were you (not a fan of the 5 years old point of view). Not an objective comment but I'm not too keen on your processing. Either NR is too strong or you do play too much with blur. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support though the windows are very bright. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Spurzem --Llez (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, any church interior has wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment The upper half of this image is quite empty. I propose to crop most of the ceiling, see two proposals for cropping in the image notes. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Uoaei1 ,thanks for review --LivioAndronico talk 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Support This looks much better now for me! --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]