Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mission Santa Barbara HDR.jpg

File:Mission Santa Barbara HDR.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:14:12

•  Info created by kevincole @ Flickr - modified, uploaded & nominated by JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Info An amazing picture from someone who truly knows how to do HDR. Almost unearthly in its beauty, which certainly suits the subject. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, I love the HDR effect on this. Great depth and tonal range. Julielangford (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I just discovered that Howcheng had the same idea and uploaded the same photo (without color modifications) six days ago at File:Mission Santa Barbara chapel interior.jpg. I invite you to compare the two. -- JovanCormac 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the pointer JovanCormac. I realy like this one, but the vibrancy on the other one is magnificent. Absolutely gorgeous. Julielangford (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I tamed the colors because of fear that if I nominated the original picture, the "Anti-Overprocessing" crowd (which I belong to) would vote it down. -- JovanCormac 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not a fan of over processing either, especially HDR, but a HDR that is done well is a different story. Both versions of this are very well done, and although I would support this version over the two, I would not oppose the other one. Julielangford (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral – I agree – it is one of the few HDRs without the overprocessed and surreal look. One thing that immediately catches my eye is the missing perspective correction. Straight lines would make this picture so much better. So neutral to me. --Ernie (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of creating a perspective corrected version for you to take a look at. I won't add it here though as I feel the JovanCormac version is brilliant and warrants a feature. File:MissionSantaBarbaraHDR-perspective-edit.jpg Julielangford (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I took the liberty of converting the text into a link for easier use. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Julie, I think in general your version looks even better than the one I uploaded, as the altar room is more prominent. But the perspective is a little distorted (which is why I don't use the term "perspective correction" myself; usually it's quite the opposite) which becomes evident when you looks at the "overweight" altar figures. It's really hard to say which one is preferrable, guess the voters will tell us more. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ahhh, you know, as I was typing it up, I knew correction wasn't the right term, but I couldn't think of the right term. Adjustment would have been better, had it have come to me at the time, as correction is quite wrong. Yours is a true [Correct]perspective, where as my edit is an illusion. Due to guidelines stipulated above, I really don't think the false perspective should be featured, so I oppose it :)Julielangford (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that's hardly your fault, with "perspective correction" being the standard term used by people who really mean "perspective falsification to make it look better". Commons:Image_guidelines uses the same misleading term, and I think that it should be modified there as well. Cheers to that :) -- JovanCormac 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think this is just badly overprocessed, the unrealistic look does not fit the subject. JovanCormac, why do you oppose Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Former steel mill in Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord.jpg because of overprocessing but "fear the 'Anti-Overprocessing' crowd"?
  While that Duisburg picture has its own unique and intrguing style, this simply overprocessed HDR here is nothing but kitschy to a point where looking at it really hurts. -- H005 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated in my comment above I do indeed consider myself a member of that "crowd". But somehow the overprocessing (which HDR invariably is) didn't disturb me in this picture as it did in the Duisburg one. I guess you could call the Duisburg picture modern art, but it is processed to a point where it really doesn't illustrate anything anymore, except High Dynamic Range Photography. I don't think this is the case here. -- JovanCormac 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Don't listen to the crowds, this is just great. Yann (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - JovanCormac's original nomination - I like the 'raised' altar - though the colors were toned down a little too much IMO. Downtowngal (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I was going to nominate this at FPC, but I thought the pixelation in the pew in the lower right would disqualify it. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose looks like the default settings of Photomatix. Very unnatural overprocessing. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing depth --Tintero (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as H005. --Karel (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose —kallerna™ 07:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Cool application of HDR! -- Simisa (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose While I like the concept of HDR, this image looks too artificial to me. --JalalV (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good HDR image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Sorry, but this is two-mouse-click-Flickr-crap. Looks completely unnatural, has no educational use. --Dschwen (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A good HDR pic. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)