Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2013 at 21:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe it compares favourably to the previous nomination below in terms of resolution, detail and photorealism. This image IMO is a more respectful reproduction of the lighting inside the Natural History Museum. Diliff (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the ghosts ... ??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice image and apt lighting. Presence of ghosting is very minor and is not disturbing. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but to eliminate the ghosts is a small work for a good software, for example: like Photomatix 4.x.
It's not possible to eliminate the ghosting. Photomatix only removes the ghosts that are caused by duplication between the different exposures of the same frame. However, the ghosts in this image are caused by long exposure and cannot easily be removed. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it is also simple to eliminate the ghosts: take 2-3 shots and mask the peaple out. I think you know it too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do... But this photo was already 24 separate exposures and it was extremely difficult to find any time at all when people weren't coming up or down the stairs. I was also standing in the same position that many other photographers wanted to stand to take their photos so I was under pressure to give them 'their turn'. ;-) I didn't think it was necessary to remove all the ghosts. Diliff (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing also the info: how it is made: I think it is also an HDR image. Please add the infos: exposure time(s), like here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to explain how I made the image for it to be considered featureable, but I've added the info as you requested. Diliff (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is always important for a lot of other photographers and it is simply educational. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO not both photos can become featured because the motives are too similiar. What do the others think about that? --Tuxyso (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not? There are many precedents, e.g. this one --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think they are so similar. The angle of view is different (mine is considerably wider), as is the lighting/HDR processing. Each show the same subject but quite differently. Diliff (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner: That is a very rare case. But, here I agree with Diliff; the lighting make them very different. J Kadavoor J e e 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically it is considerably better than the other nomination/FP: the lighting is handled better, the image is sharper while slightly higher resolution, and the verticals are straight. I also prefer the composition here (in the other, the hand rail dominated) and the extra width brings in another section of ceiling and two side galleries. It is a shame about the ghosts. -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly the same as Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^diskuse 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot Halavar (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J Kadavoor J e e 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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