Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 17:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This image is a bit different to my other church interiors. I had to shoot this (*GASP*).... handheld. The staff of the Old Royal Naval College absolutely forbid tripods. The only exception they will make to this rule is if you pay £500 for the privilege of buying a commercial license, which in any case would be quite restricted in how the photo could be used and probably not compatible with the Creative Commons license. I tried speaking to a manager to see if they would make an exception. Absolutely not. I asked to speak to their supervisor. No, still no tripods allowed under any circumstance. They are probably the most stubborn, unsympathetic and inflexible heritage/religious organisation I've ever had the misfortune of having to deal with for photography. So, needless to say, I did my utmost best to take a commercial-quality photo of the interior 'hand-held' just to spite them. ;-) It's not quite as good as my tripod-based interiors (I didn't use HDR and I had to use 2 x 3 frames at f/5.6 and 1/40th of a second exposures with my 35mm lens instead of 3 x 5 frames at f/13 with my 50mm lens), and the resolution and detail is inferior. But I'm pretty sure that this is about as good as is realistically possible of this interior, handheld. -- Diliff (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cetainly great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just had similar issue, but for a Museum, I said its volunteer work, she replied "you boys are golden". That word "volunteer" helps often. I see your interior is periodical, left-right some strong light, crop above is (again) not good in my opinion. I put suggestion with note, you would get rid of blown sides, make upper crop better and would get same stuff. It that f real around 12 mm ? --Mile (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, I tried every angle possible including highlighting that my photography is volunteer work for an educational cause (Wiki). They weren't at all interested in discussing it - they only want to maintain complete control over any commercial use of the image that they can so that they can make as much money as possible. They hate the idea of losing their share of the 'pie'. Diliff (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the suggested crop though, and it loses too much precious resolution to crop so much. The blown windows are unimportant IMO. Who cares that they're blown? I don't think they're distracting, and most clear windows are just white anyway so there's no detail to be concerned about losing. No, the real focal length is not so wide - more like 18-20mm full frame. Diliff (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see some institutions want to own copyright despite PD-70, so I don't think you should be worried about their wishes in such cases. --Mile (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very worried about their wishes, but they had two employees in the room to stop me using the tripod. ;-) Diliff (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good, but I much prefer your wider crop in the first version. The aspect ratio is better and the leading diagonals to the upper corners makes a much stronger image. Would you consider an Alt? -- Colin (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. I thought it looked a bit wide, but I think you might be right about the composition. I'll revert. Diliff (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's simply incredible that you didn't get any stitching error given the circumstances. And I think I'm good at spotting them. (saw a tiny one on a column :) but it's tiny). For the rest, you know what I think of your interiors. - Benh (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it anyway. ;-) But also because I actually spotted a bigger stitching fault that you missed. ;-) It was at the back of the room on the lectern. I was able to minimise stitching errors by being careful to rotate myself around the camera instead of the 'usual' rotating the camera around me. But I did correct a few other minor stitching faults before uploading the first version - it wasnt quite flawless, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with the clone tool. Diliff (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of my unique appreciation for the challenges of photographing in this space. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this tone. --Laitche (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, considering the circumstances --Llez (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow... --Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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