Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sultan Ahmet Mosque February 2013.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Sultan Ahmet Mosque February 2013.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 21:05:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Interior of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque ("Blue Mosque"), Istanbul, Turkey. Exposure fusion from 2 exposures (3 EV). Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Where are the bells ? oh sorry, it is not Notre-Dame... Very nice, very good light, shame of the moving man, but still a wonderful picture for me. Congrats !--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good, nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Agreed on the composition, though you could probably get away with more of a crop to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Opposevery gloomy compared to File:Blue Mosque Interior 2 Wikimedia Commons.JPG. Different parts though. JKadavoor Jee 06:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)- Comment Clearly over-exposed image. My picture is much closer to reality, is also my picture taken a very gray winter with weaker light from the outside.--ArildV (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment You can compare with this picture from the mosque's official website.--ArildV (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; the bottom half. But I love it (the upper half) than this much darkness. Just my opinion; others may have different... JKadavoor Jee 13:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the first time; decline because the photo is NOT overexpoused! I made the mistake apparently to upload a picture that showed mosque as it is, not as you think it should look like (and it does, how absurd it may sound, the picture worse as you).
- From now on (if your opinion will guide), all interior photos to be either: a) over-exposed, b) heavily manipulated to suit your taste for how a building should look. The educational value is obviously irrelevant. Better to fool visitors to Wikipedia with a fake, manipulated image.
- --ArildV (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Arild, I can't see any details here. Most of the artworks on the walls are very, very dark. I don't think lack of overexposure is a reason to support. The interiors of many buildings may be very underexposed; but our eyes have the ability to adjust themselves to see properly; the camera lacks it. That is why we use other techniques like HDR (or whatever maybe).
- My opinion is just my opinion; it has nothing to do in the rejection of an FP! (I think you know it well. Nowadays my votes only attract revenge votes, so chances that you get at-least 5+ blind supports for this single oppose. Am I withdraw my oppose?) JKadavoor Jee 15:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see any details here? Excuse me, you must have an incorrectly adjusted monitor. I can see every single piece of the ceramic tiles, no details on the walls is lost in darkness. And it is a HDR, which has given a correct exposure of the inside while the details and colors of the windows are preserved.
- I dont know and dont care about revenge votes (if there exists). If we begin to think about FP/QI-politics before we vote, we become corrupt. I may be naive, but I never think about it. And would you nominate a good picture today, I would support.--ArildV (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; the bottom half. But I love it (the upper half) than this much darkness. Just my opinion; others may have different... JKadavoor Jee 13:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is cw tilted Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors