Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stjosephinteriorhdr
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 01:37:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and resolution, shows relevant features
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cathedral Basilica of St. Joseph (San Jose, California)
- FP category for this image
- places
- Creator
- DavidLeighEllis
- Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Good lighting; the space is well-illuminated and the stained glass is not totally blown (like some others I have seen). Focus looks decent at all depths. The two lanterns at the top in the foreground are at a weird angle due to their closeness, but it is the only perspective issue I see. However, could we have more description of what exactly the picture shows for EV, ie what elements of the church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris857 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 May 2013
- Support I see no major flaws with this image, though its current placement in the article causes some serious MoS issues. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Question Has this image already gone through lens correction to reduce the distortion from such short focal length? If not, I'd like to see that done before supporting, as the candlesticks in the foreground are really distorted. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the distortion in the foreground is too great, e.g. the candlesticks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The candlesticks actually are leaning IRL, though taking the picture at 14mm FX may exaggerate the effect. Physical considerations prevent imaging the same area with a longer focal length lens. Unfortunately, my photo editing skills are not such as to allow me to correct the candlesticks without altering the perspective of the entire photo. Perhaps someone else would like to try their hand at it? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I could work on it. Do you have the original RAW file? And if so, would you be ok emailing it to me? If not, can you let me know exactly what lens you were using? Doing perspective correction if you know the lens is a quick job in Lightroom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 04:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no RAW file; the image was taken as a bracketed series of HDR JPEGs, then composited with further HDR processing. The lens is an AF-S Nikkor 14-24 mm 1:2.8G ED, at the 14mm setting. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it would be helpful, I can upload the original JPEGs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, so that is what an image with the 'auto-HDR' looks like. Very nice result. I'll work off the existing image for now. Will just do lens correction (thanks for the lens info!). --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a the file with the lens correction to WP. If it ends up being used, we can move it to commons. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, so that is what an image with the 'auto-HDR' looks like. Very nice result. I'll work off the existing image for now. Will just do lens correction (thanks for the lens info!). --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I could work on it. Do you have the original RAW file? And if so, would you be ok emailing it to me? If not, can you let me know exactly what lens you were using? Doing perspective correction if you know the lens is a quick job in Lightroom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 04:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The HDR effect is way too strong. A whole bunch of white walls have been rendered as muddy grey, for example. Here is a reference pic with poorer composition. You can probably reprocess from the originals properly to get my support. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)