Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpg

File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 15:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - I like this photo, but I don't think I've ever been to this church. If the ceiling is really this colorful and the colors are all correct, I'll be happy to support running it. But I'd like at least your affirmation of this before voting. I hope this seems like a reasonable request to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• You can see here thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I had already done a Google image search before I posted. Your picture seems to be the most vivid search result, with others being much duller. That could easily mean that your photograph is simply much better, but that's why I asked. So please address this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My photographs have a exposure very long (this 10 seconds!) and colors are ever more vivid than other exposures much shorter.Thanks.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that really clear explanation, and I'm happy to  Support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on the other images, it looks to me like the bright and dark parts of the painting have been brought closer together - the overall contrast in other images seems to be much larger and is almost nonexistent here (which looks fake regardless of context). I  Oppose based on that, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support it looks realistic to me. --Hubertl 22:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Are there some chromatic aberrations (especially on the right side)? Or are they some color reflections from else where? Might need a little correction. I still like it. --Ximonic (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

•  Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)