Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-2a.jpg
File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-2a.jpg, not featured
edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling of the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona, Spain. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support --BoothSift 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I like it but in my opinion the technical quality is not up to the standard for church interiors here at FP. General lack of detail and sharpness, blown highlights. -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)- Oppose I like the composition and the light but imho there is too much noise. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- OpposePer B2Belgium.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per B2Belgium, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak support (Can I use this template now? Happy to change it if I can't.) The criticisms about technical quality are valid, not that it's bad but that it isn't quite up to the level of some FP church interiors. That said, I downsampled it to 2200px across - which is 7 mpx and still meets FP size requirements - and it looks perfectly sharp and without any visible noise. On that basis I think I can give it a qualified support considering what an amazing interior it is. Cmao20 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)- Yeah@Cmao20
18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC) - Support.--Vulphere 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- 13:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per B2Belgium --Llez (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per B2Belgium --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I think we can do better in 2019. If I should guess, it's a hand hold shot at high ISO that has been sharpened, shadows brought up and then denoised quite heavily. The detailes are kind of washed out. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, it's most likely handheld with high ISO just like the other nomination, but with missing metadata in this case. – Lucas 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support @B2Belgium: Please also take a look at the 6MP Version --Habitator terrae 🌍 21:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Neutral I do like this but there are some aspects, like the highlights, that I would like to know things like the exposure, that are normally listed in the metadata but aren't here, which would help me decide if they were avoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
