Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Saint-Jacques BLS.jpg

File:Tour Saint-Jacques BLS.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2015 at 03:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Saint-Jacques BLS.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Saint-Jacques BLS.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  weak support - Curious as to whether or not we could have less distracting shadows. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is a third attempt... and I don't think we could. If I take it a bit earlier, the bottom part of the tower is in the shade (because of surrounding buildings). If I take it at later time, shadows have grown too much horizontaly. This is north side of the tower, leaving a very short window to get it right. Now to say all about it, the rightmost building should have been lit by the sun on top, but I found it distracting, so I used a shot taken dozens of minutes before to stitch, so everything but the tower is in the shade. Not quite faithful to reality, but more beautiful in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Short of pulling a Mr. Burns-esque act of villainy, I don't see a way of controlling the lighting here. Striking the "weak". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• What about shooting the scene in June? Don't want to be a smart-ass here, but 8 o'clock in April is imo not really the best time to get optimal light on a north facade. --DXR (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Smart ;) true. I probably wouldn't have waited until June had I realised then (I don't plan this far). I could do it again now, checked that July is still good enough, but my backlog of photos to process or move to wiki has quite swelled up lately... I may go there and just see how the lighting renders (maybe the right building come out of the shade). But I personally like the lighting enough that way. I guess I'll just wait next year to actually take the photo again. - Benh (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• And leaves of the tree might be an annoyance. - Benh (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I didn't mean to say "Go out and do it better", but rather react to Crisco's comment ;-). I'd rather have you create great new stuff like this than spend too much time for that tower. --DXR (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Not a very inspiring shot, but I think lighting won't get (edit after discussion above) much better than this, and will fulfill its encyclopedic purposes well. - Benh (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition and perspective control. --Laitche (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I salute you, Benh, for all you've tried to do here. But the unnatural sky color and CA around it suggest overprocessing here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not Crisco, but guess "you takin' to me" instead ;) Not too sure how it's unnatural, but I used a polariser filter to darken the sky. It was even darker than that and I had to brighten it actually. I don't see CA, and they don't come from overprocessing so I guess you mean "halo" you get from oversharpening. I do sharpen so the fine details stand out more, but feel it's not pushed too far. I'll listen to other points of view. - Benh (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Post amended. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Concernant les CAs je suppose que Daniel parle des traces violettes sur la balustrade en haut de l'immeuble de droite. Les ombres semblent avoir été très éclaircies, ce qui doit affecter dans une certaine mesure le contraste et donc le rendu des couleurs. Je n'ai pour ma part rien décidé concernant mon vote. Really sorry I'm a bit too tired after my day job to try to speak in English. -- Christian Ferrer 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• J'ai regardé de nouveau et je pense qu'il parle des halos autour des batiments. Il faut vraiment regarder de près la miniature pour le voir. C'est un phénomène qui vient du fait que j'ai fusionné trois expositions. C'est ce qui me permet d'avoir les bâtiments sur le côté relativement clairs (sans ça ils seraient vraiment sombres). Je ne sais pas si je dois m'entêter à essayer de voir ça (je dois déjà revoir mon image de la cathédrale de Condom). Si les critiques sont unanimes, je le ferai. Pour le vote, tu n'as pas à te justifier, je suis là pour lire des avis francs :) - Benh (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Lack of color vibrancy. -- Christian Ferrer 14:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Not happy about how you brightened the parts of the sky towards the left and right where the dark buildings are, not happy about the bottom crop. But man, that light just works perfectly with this architecture. — Julian H.^✈ 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I noticed that after Daniel Case mentioned it as "CA". Not happy with it either... I spent a lot of time on that picture... so I'm a bit annoyed ;). It's due to exposures blending, and not an effect of me brightening the sky (which was much darker because of the polariser). Added to my backlog for fix. - Benh (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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