Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Burkard, Würzburg, Crossing and Altar 20150729 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:St. Burkard, Würzburg, Crossing and Altar 20150729 1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 05:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Code (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! --DXR (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Nice, although it seems like it could be a bit brighter. Was the slightly dull ambience the intention DXR? Diliff (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I think it is pretty representative for the actual look of the place. It was a very overcast day and although I could push it 0.3 EV or so, I'm not sure if that would be closer to reality. I'm rather agnostic about that, so if people like it to be brighter, I can do that. --DXR (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment You should put some EV, and maybe increase vibrance (colors). --Mile (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks for your comments. --DXR (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Distorted and unreal.--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Childish revenge vote, especially the now redacted part ", by a expensive camera.". Instead of improving your processes, you act in this way. It's your choice. --DXR (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- By the way: This was taken with a 175€ lens and is equivalent to a view with a 14mm lens or so (the exif is before crop). Completely normal super wide angle. Canon now has normal lenses that are much wider than this--DXR (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Childish revenge answer....who care the lens? Talk of your expensive camera,Nikon D800. Be serious --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Livio, does it matter what camera was used if the result is good? This is just as distorted as many of Poco's recent nominations (many you supported) and is of a far higher technical quality - less unsharpness at the edges. It's far too easy to just say 'distorted and unreal' without having to really justify your answer. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a distraction that shouldn't affect Code's nomination. I have posted on Livio's talk page with a longer explanation and hope that this drama is not continued here... --DXR (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK thanks, you're right, it's not the first time this has happened and it's better to continue on his talk page. Livio, if you wish to respond to my comment above, I'm happy to discuss it on your talk page, just ping me. Diliff (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a distraction that shouldn't affect Code's nomination. I have posted on Livio's talk page with a longer explanation and hope that this drama is not continued here... --DXR (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Livio, does it matter what camera was used if the result is good? This is just as distorted as many of Poco's recent nominations (many you supported) and is of a far higher technical quality - less unsharpness at the edges. It's far too easy to just say 'distorted and unreal' without having to really justify your answer. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Childish revenge answer....who care the lens? Talk of your expensive camera,Nikon D800. Be serious --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- By the way: This was taken with a 175€ lens and is equivalent to a view with a 14mm lens or so (the exif is before crop). Completely normal super wide angle. Canon now has normal lenses that are much wider than this--DXR (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Childish revenge vote, especially the now redacted part ", by a expensive camera.". Instead of improving your processes, you act in this way. It's your choice. --DXR (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Mostly to nullify the above vote (not that I wouldn't vote for it, but I'm seeing too many churches :) ). - Benh (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Well what Livio stated I did notice before, if you check that wooden stuff in corners, but since interesting part is the middle and some level is normal. Often have in my mind it is safe bet on Churchopedia Commons. --Mile (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Splendid. --Laitche (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Right up there with David's church interiors. I like the perspective lines. I don't mind the slightly blown back window panes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clear windows are just white anyway, so blown or not blown, it doesn't really change anything. It's actually a bit more of a problem when they are so darkened (as with some HDR tone mapping) that they look like a dull grey. So I agree with you, it's not a problem. Diliff (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support definitely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
