Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heilig-Geist-Kirche, Werder (Havel), 150912, ako.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Heilig-Geist-Kirche, Werder (Havel), 150912, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 09:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior view of the Heilig-Geist-Kirche Werder (Havel).
 Support IMO it's OK now.--XRay talk 13:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So when you said soft, you really meant low contrast? They usually mean quite different things... but it could be interpreted as 'soft light' I guess? Diliff (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Prefer this crop too - portrait framing often doesn't work that well for church interiors IMO. I find myself wanting to see more of the sides, unless the subject of the image is something naturally tall, like an altar. I still think it's slightly low in contrast but perhaps it's just the diffused light. I'll trust your judgement here. Diliff (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like the technical result ("Pour un coup d'essai, c'est un coup de maître !"), but I don't find the subject interesting. There is nothing remarkable in this church interior (to me), Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question about variations of colors. I don't think the differences between the "brown right" and the "brown left" are natural, but due to processing. Any idea ?
      • You forgot to sign Jebulon. I think the difference in colours between left and right are perfectly natural. It's most likely because the left is lit by sunlight and the right is in shadow. You can see the shadow cast by the seats in the aisle. The HDR tone mapping gives the illusion of there being minimal difference in luminosity between them though, which is part of the criticism I had about the low contrast. Diliff (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't sign because my tablet decieded suddenly to have a conflict with "Commons", it works now. Thanks for answer, which prevents me definitely against a support. You write that it is "perfectly natural", I don't think so...The dangers of HDR...--Jebulon (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • One side is still clearly darker than the other though, so I don't think it's particularly unnatural. What makes HDR tone mapping work is that as long as you look at different areas of a photo individually (for example, the left seating, then the right seating), you perceive that one is darker than the other even when sometimes the measured luminosity does not actually match your perception. It's a similar optical illusion to this as the surrounding luminosity provides the context. Sometimes this illusion breaks down in HDR tone mapped images if there is insufficient contrast, and perhaps for you it does for this image. Diliff (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl 23:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings