Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lichfield Cathedral Exterior from NE, Staffordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Lichfield Cathedral Exterior from NE, Staffordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, withdrawn edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 15:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't it a bit overprocessed (in order to "emphazise" the sky) ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that it's not really. It looks much closer to how it is seen with the eye. The camera's limited dynamic range usually results in white skies in scenes like this, but why should we limit our photography to the limitations of camera sensors? I'm not saying I can't make mistakes, but I always try to keep the processing faithful to how I saw it, rather than overprocess it for dramatic effect. Diliff (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is lovely and sharp. But there's no getting away from the weather/light being dull. And I agree with Jebulon -- looks a bit too much contrast (see the cars on the left for example). Because of the light, and the very varied colour of stone, it is quite hard to make out the form of the building, which is also foreshortened by the wide-angle lens (see this aerial photo that shows how long the building is). I can't help thinking you photographed the weaker side. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit frustrating though, because there's always one group of people saying it's unrealistic to only photograph buildings in lovely sunlight that if the UK typically has a lot of overcast days, it's encyclopaedic to show them in that way, and then another group saying that overcast light is dull. Yes, maybe it's dull, but it also brings out a different character to the building. I don't think it's hard to make out the form of the building, I'm not sure why you think that's so. And yes, the other end of the cathedral is spectacular in its own way, but it is even harder to photograph as you can't get nearly as far back. The foreshortening issue you say is a problem in my image is much worse from the front. Anyway, it wasn't possible when I was visiting as they had a big marquee out the front (just out of view behind it in this image) which spoiled any frontal views of the cathedral. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the limit of oversaturation, but likely I did much worse on some of my images. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it is naturally quite a red stone and overcast weather will make the colour a bit deeper, but I'd be happy to desaturate it slightly. I do find that increasing contrast sometimes adds too much saturation and maybe I pushed contrast too much. Diliff (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Colin. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarding the "typically English sky ... the colour of a rancid dishrag" as the late Douglas Adams once famously put it, I'm inclined to agree with David that, our own personal experiences with lovely English weather on visits there aside, the reality of rain falling hard on these humdrum towns with the skies to match is fundamental to the country, so I agree with David that we cannot deny that. And I think this image overcomes that grim weather, as the English and those who came there from somewhere sunnier have been managing to do for centuries. Its colors are not only strong but warm, bringing out the earthiness of this church. And I like the idea of shooting from the rear this way, an angle not commonly chosen for most striking buildings that we get lots of photos of. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Diliff you know I'm your biggest fan but in this case I don't see the WOW. It has educational value of course but FP always needs a little bit more. I think I don't like the perspective, too. --Code (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the perspective. --Laitche (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me it fits well with the gloomy atmosphere of the old building.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, nice perspective, impressive mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am a huge fan of your photos but I have some problems here. I dont have problems with cloudy days per se. Cloudy days can be really beautiful, but the light and the colors here are not (of course my personal opinion) very beautiful. I agree with the comments about overprocessed and oversaturation, but perharps the problem here is you camera's limited dynamic range and inferior colors. Also, the color of the grass looks strange (looks more like spring / early summer than July). Not bad, some very srong points (sharpness), but I think we can expect a bit more in terms of colors and lights then it comes to a very easy to reach cathedral.--ArildV (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nothing to do with the camera - this is an HDR image. And the Canon 5D Mk iii doesn't have inferior colours. ;-) Dynamic range, maybe, but the colours are fine. I still think the colours are reasonably faithful, but the contrast may be a bit too high. Anyway, it seems clear that this one won't pass. I'll revisit it one day - it's easy to reach, but a 2 and a half hour drive for me, so we'll see. :-) Diliff (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I misread your answer to Jebulon.--ArildV (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. It seems unlikely to pass, and I take the comments on board. Diliff (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]