Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 14:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of St. Peter's Cathedral, Rome
 Info Yes, I could. But reducing color noise will also affect detail. What is the least of the evils? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but is either way an FP? That's the question we have to think about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't study these ceiling images, but this looks soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support Big pro: Normally we try to photograph such domes symetrically (looking exactly upwards); often this is not possible and a sloped view is all we can achieve, but most times the result is not appealing. You have managed to get a very attractive composition from the slightly sloped view – bravo! In addition the crepuscular rays (?) from the dome windows add a nice effect. – Neutral: Personally I would not mind the little noise: Given the resolution it is low, it is natural photon noise, and I like a little bit of noise much better than a mushy picture resulting from strong noise reduction. But you could try to increase the colour noise removal only (without increasing the monotone noise removal); this could give a cleaner result without reducing details. – Problems: The level of details could be higher; theoretically it should be possible to get more of the dome sharp at 24mm and f/8 (maybe the lens has got some field curvature which counteracts this?). I am not sure about the white balance and the colours – it seems too bluish/greenish. And it’s natural that some of the windows are blown, but nevertheless it would be better if the bars would be visible in all/most windows. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Changed from neutral to WS after reading my own evaluation again. --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Well executed, good time of day, focused and striking composition. Noise and sharpness could be improved with Topaz or other artificial intelligence tools that add false details, I prefer this type of noisy image because in the noise there is also important information that should not be removed or changed by details generated by an AI.--Wilfredor (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I don't know. The quality is barely OK. But I understand tripods are forbidden there (I photographed it myself, and it doesn't look good). The feature is the the light beam. I love them generally speaking, but I only wished this was going down rather than up. As it is, it's much less mystical. God reaches us, not some green guys in space. - 16:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Vote by User:Benh that forgot to sign --Wilfredor (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A great statement, but typical Henri Cartier-Bresson photos are not static architecture shots (like this one), so IMHO the comparison is not 100% accurate ;–). Most (all?) theories of photography which I know, also from Cartier-Bresson’s time, apply different criteria to reportage photography vs. architectural/landscape photography vs. fashion photography vs. wildlife photography vs. portrait … everything in its own respect. It is arguable if we should compare our photos here with the work of classic photographers; but when we do it, we should compare our pictures to photographs of the same genre. Therefore for a mostly documentary Italian church photo like this one, we could compare e.g. photographs by Fratelli Alinari and by countless hard-working self-employed photographers like Giorgio Sommer. (Please be aware that the scans of their photos which we have at Commons often do not do justice to the quality of the original photos; the original prints are often of much better quality.) The result is simple: Although these photographers had to take care of a tremendous technical effort, which we can’t even imagine thanks to our digital cameras, and always had to carry their heavy view cameras, they attached greatest importance to a technically best possible image. And if we want to compare somewhat newer and certainly artistic photographs, e.g. the work of Cartier-Bresson’s contemporary Andreas Feininger may offer nice comparisons. Feiniger has worked in many genres, from reportage to macro to architecture photography, but he always selected the best possible tools – a Leica or medium-format camera for the reportage, a view camera for landscape and cityscape. He even constructed his own special ultra-telephoto view camera because no available camera was good enough. When Feininger rushed up the stairs of a New York skyscraper to photograph a special, unrepeatable lighting mood, he did not take his Leica, he still carried the big view camera. If one wants even more famous names, we can think of Ansel Adams who climbed the mountains with the view camera … These stories humble me; they remind me, at least, that while I may and must make compromises (for example, when the tripod is forbidden), I should still do everything as carefully as possible to meet the requirements and ideals of the genre in question; and for architectural and landscape photography this means to strive for the best possible techical quality. --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:S._Pietro_May_2022-15.jpg&oldid=673894118"