Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG

File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2016 at 06:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info Bottom view of the crossing of the Roman Catholic cathedral of Seville, Seville, Spain. The temple is since 1987 a World Heritage Site according to the by UNESCO, is the largest Gothic cathedral and the third-largest church in the world. When it was completed, at the beginning of the 16th century, it became the successor of Hagia Sophia as the largest cathedral in the world, a title the Byzantine church had held for nearly a thousand years. The cathedral is also the burial site of Christopher Columbus. All by me, Poco² 06:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 06:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  for the time being is it just me or are there sharpness issues? I do hope it's fixable... "wow" is definitely there! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Different screen, way better result. Don't know what happenend... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - It's not just you. I was surprised to see them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

   Question Can you please illuminate me? :) I don't see such obvious problems. The sharpness on the left is lower than in the middle, I agree, but I still believe that given the resolution of the file should be acceptable. Or do you mean something else? Poco² 09:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I can`t spot any inconvenience on my Apple iMac 5k 27" monitor. Everything is perfectly great. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment. I see the sharpness issues that others have mentioned. It's not just softer at the edges (expected for an wide angle lens), it actually looks like slight camera shake because even the centre looks unsharp. The question is whether it's a big enough problem or not. Yes, a high resolution camera is more susceptible to camera shake, but it also deserves greater attention to such things. Was it on a tripod or hand-held? Even if on a tripod, a 1/8 of a second is nearly the ideal exposure length to maximise the effect of mirror slap. Diliff (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  David: this picture is a HDR (I always state it in the title, along with the amount of frames). The exposure of the frames was 0.5s, 2s, 1/8s. I couldn't use a tripod there (far too crowded at that spot) but used the best tool I can think of (the floor). I also tried to keep everybody away from the camera to avoid vibrations, but who knows. In fact the longer-exposure frame was not at sharp as the others (what a surprise). I have removed it from the HDR and the result is IMHO overall better (trade-off was a bit of noise in the darker areas, but still acceptable, I believe). Poco² 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I've been to the cathedral (many years ago, before I was as interested in photographing them) and I know how busy it is. Obviously you know now that it probably won't work to use those kind of exposures on the floor without a tripod. It's strange that only the 2s exposure was the blurry one though, because in my experience, when the camera is stationary (either on a tripod or on the floor or a table or something), longer exposures often result in sharper images because the mirror slap only occurs at the start of the exposure. If the vibration from the slap takes 1/4 of a second to disappear, then the 1/4 second exposure will be 100% blurred. But a 2 second exposure will only be 12.5% blurred (the other 87.5% is 'sharp'). There will still be some evidence of the blur even in the 2 second exposure but the effect would much less. I assume the floor was stone, and there wouldn't be any vibration from people walking around. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and yes I agree completely, a bit of noise is more acceptable than a bit of blur. The noise can be reduced in post-production, blur cannot. :-)  Support now. Diliff (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Quality not superb, but compensated by lots of wow. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The softness isn't a problem for me; I understand this very well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you're selling your photo short - it doesn't look soft to me. Diliff (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, IIRC, you said it might have been sharper had I been able to put the camera on a tripod. Also, this ceiling is a lot higher. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support  Neutral generalized motion blur is observed and may be due to a tripod vibration --The Photographer (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC) because new version, well done --The Photographer (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  The Photographer: please have a new look to the last version. No tripod was used, though (see above). Poco² 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Sharpness improved with the new version. I quite like a square crop, which preserves the sharpest portion while also being geometrically satisfying. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Colin, I had being consdiring such a version when I processed this image. If you like I can include an alternative version. Poco² 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • A bit late now, perhaps. Might be worth uploading anyway, as that aspect ratio is more useful on Wikipedia where wide images disrupt the text more. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    • Well, the nomination is one day old, I think that it isn't too late. I will create it this evening. Poco² 08:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

      •  Done Poco² 20:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support New version is much better and the image is quite stunning visually. --DXR (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 23:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. — Julian H.^✈ 13:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 19:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative

Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR Edit.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR Edit.JPG

 Info New version as alternative with a square crop Poco² 20:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Poco I don't think you uploaded the sharp version. It doesn't compare well to the wider crop. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  You are right, I got the wrong picture as basis,  fixed now. Poco² 19:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  Much sharper. A little darker than the other one but up to you what you think is most accurate/pleasing for that. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I think this is the better of the two. -- Colin (talk)
•  Support — Julian H.^✈ 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I like this one better, too. The crop eliminates the less-sharp areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG