Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St George's Hall Liverpool England.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:St George's Hall Liverpool England.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)- Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Neutral -- seems blurred a litlle Jiel (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As with most of your other HDR photography (which I assume you process in the same way), the histogram looks normal, but there's something a bit unaesthetic about the tonality and it's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is. I can only assume it's the HDR software/settings. But yes, on top of that, it is quite unsharp... I've tried to discuss this with you in the past but you've never responded to me. Diliff (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Sorry for not replying to a previous posts. I am using a cropped sensor camera shooting on an wide angle zoom EF-S 10mm to 22mm and this is the sharpest that I can get it. I don't know if it is a limitation with the actual lens, or if there is an error/damage with the lens or if it just me as a user end user. About the aesthetics one issue that is on my mind that might be a problem is that I have never calibrated my monitor, something that I mean to get around to doing as I could be getting the colours wrong. Postive criticism always welcome any suggestions to how I could improve my hdr processing are welcome. As for the sharpness issue, the Commons featured minimum requirement is 2megapixles and this image is 18megapixels, even if it is slightly blurry at 18megepixels viewed at 100%, do you think that if it were resized to 5megapixles that the image would still be classed as un-sharp if it were that size? For me at 5megapixels this image would be sharp and still be well over the 2megapixel requirements for featured photographs, thought that is my own personal opinon with regards to sharpness vs megapixel size with regards to this specific image Mdbeckwith
- It does seem softer than I would expect from the 10-22mm lens. Some of your photos using the same lens look sharper than others, which is confusing to me. Sometimes one side of the frame is soft but the other side is sharp(er), sometimes it's just soft everywhere. As for sharpness if downsampled to 5 megapixels, I have to say, I just tried it and I still see the softness even at 5MP, although obviously it is lessened. The thing is, yes at 5mp, it would be well over the 2 megapixel requirement but it doesn't mean people would support it. Architectural images like this usually rely on good detail in order to wow. At 5MP or lower, it may not pass muster. I don't usually see any significant problem with the settings you use (as long as you don't get too much beyond f/11, you should be close to the maximum sharpness of the lens). I suspect the softness is either due to the way it is processed, or it is indeed a limitation of the lens. I'd be a bit disappointed with the lens if so. Most wide angle lenses are sharpish in the middle and soft at the edges but this seems to be soft everywhere. The strange thing is, detail is there, it's just that it seems to be shrouded in unsharpness. This isn't the least sharp image of yours though, I have seen worse. This one for example. Can you see the artifacts in this image, particularly in the stained glass, and in particular on the left side, how soft it is? The right side is not as bad as the left, and that tends to point to an issue with the lens. But then there's the HDR processing. I don't know if it's a monitor calibration image or just that you don't perceive the same image that I do. Some people actually like heavily processed HDR images, so it may just be subjective. But compare your Gloucester Cathedral image with mine, which is also HDR. I'm not saying mine is perfect by any means, but compare the sharpness and the tonality of the two images. In comparison, yours seems quite washed out and the stained glass doesn't look particularly vivid or realistic to me. Anyway, I'm sorry that this comparison is not about the image you've nominated, but I thought it would be better to compare an apple with an apple and I had an apple handy. Actually, it seems like our photography covers a lot of the same churches and cathedrals (here's a gallery of my recent images) so it is indeed interesting to me to see your photos, but almost universally I just find your HDR processing to be a bit unappealing and overdone. The only reason I'm being so honest about it is that I think your photography would benefit if you could had something to compare your images to. Diliff (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the apples to apples comparison with Gloucester Cathedral that yours is much sharper and looking at my raw images I am not getting my images as sharp. I don't know if the EF-S 10mm to 22mm is performing as best it can or if there is a lens defect. What lens were you using for your Gloucester Cathedral shot? Mdbeckwith
- Don't compare the sharpness of mine to yours though, because I'm stitching multiple images together to create these images. I'm using a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens, usually taken portrait format and 5 columns by 3 rows (and 5 bracketed exposures), so a total of 75 images on that one. Yes, the sharpness is better, but the main point I was trying to make is that the tonality is also better. It doesn't look so HDR processed, even though I have used HDR tone mapping. It's a deliberate attempt on my part to retain detail in the shadows and highlights while trying to avoid it screaming HDR (which is usually acknowledged as a bad thing, except on Flickr!). Diliff (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the apples to apples comparison with Gloucester Cathedral that yours is much sharper and looking at my raw images I am not getting my images as sharp. I don't know if the EF-S 10mm to 22mm is performing as best it can or if there is a lens defect. What lens were you using for your Gloucester Cathedral shot? Mdbeckwith
- It does seem softer than I would expect from the 10-22mm lens. Some of your photos using the same lens look sharper than others, which is confusing to me. Sometimes one side of the frame is soft but the other side is sharp(er), sometimes it's just soft everywhere. As for sharpness if downsampled to 5 megapixels, I have to say, I just tried it and I still see the softness even at 5MP, although obviously it is lessened. The thing is, yes at 5mp, it would be well over the 2 megapixel requirement but it doesn't mean people would support it. Architectural images like this usually rely on good detail in order to wow. At 5MP or lower, it may not pass muster. I don't usually see any significant problem with the settings you use (as long as you don't get too much beyond f/11, you should be close to the maximum sharpness of the lens). I suspect the softness is either due to the way it is processed, or it is indeed a limitation of the lens. I'd be a bit disappointed with the lens if so. Most wide angle lenses are sharpish in the middle and soft at the edges but this seems to be soft everywhere. The strange thing is, detail is there, it's just that it seems to be shrouded in unsharpness. This isn't the least sharp image of yours though, I have seen worse. This one for example. Can you see the artifacts in this image, particularly in the stained glass, and in particular on the left side, how soft it is? The right side is not as bad as the left, and that tends to point to an issue with the lens. But then there's the HDR processing. I don't know if it's a monitor calibration image or just that you don't perceive the same image that I do. Some people actually like heavily processed HDR images, so it may just be subjective. But compare your Gloucester Cathedral image with mine, which is also HDR. I'm not saying mine is perfect by any means, but compare the sharpness and the tonality of the two images. In comparison, yours seems quite washed out and the stained glass doesn't look particularly vivid or realistic to me. Anyway, I'm sorry that this comparison is not about the image you've nominated, but I thought it would be better to compare an apple with an apple and I had an apple handy. Actually, it seems like our photography covers a lot of the same churches and cathedrals (here's a gallery of my recent images) so it is indeed interesting to me to see your photos, but almost universally I just find your HDR processing to be a bit unappealing and overdone. The only reason I'm being so honest about it is that I think your photography would benefit if you could had something to compare your images to. Diliff (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose too much HDR --Atamari (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment the only reason why I used HDR in this image was to get the stained glass windows exposed, if there were no stained glass windows I wouldn't have used hdr processing at all. As for the stained glass windows in this shot, I personally don't think they have been overly processed hdr wise.
- I disagree. It's of course a subjective matter when it comes to what is 'too much', but as I said above, I think the tonality is compromised by the HDR processing. Diliff (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have uploaded a new version and have corrected perspective Mdbeckwith
- Support Thanks, very well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know nothing about HDR and about this place but it seems to much brightened IMO. I think the reality is more dark... -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment With regards to lighting, there is quite a lot of natural light coming though large windows between the arches on the left of the photograph. Mdbeckwith
- Oppose like David, very nice image and atmosphere but sadly very poor technical accomplishment --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
