Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salle des Cariatides in Paris-Louvre.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Salle des Cariatides in Paris-Louvre.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2024 at 00:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The left side is noticeably less sharp than the right side, hopefully not a decentered lens? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this in all the photos I took, I don't know the reason. But I still consider it to be sharp enough for FP. Wilfredor (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know of two ways to test the lens for decentering: the quick but somewhat prone to false positives method ([https://photographylife.com/good-bad-copy-of-lens), and the precise but time consuming method ([https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/). That's a very nice lens, I would send it in for repair if it is indeed decentered. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- If all your photos taken with the same camera, but with different lenses show (more or less) the same drop of sharpness in one direction, the reason could also be that the sensor and the mount are not correctly aligned (they should be perfectly parallel but often they are not). Then the camera would need to be calibrated (not the lenses). – Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know of two ways to test the lens for decentering: the quick but somewhat prone to false positives method ([https://photographylife.com/good-bad-copy-of-lens), and the precise but time consuming method ([https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/). That's a very nice lens, I would send it in for repair if it is indeed decentered. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed this in all the photos I took, I don't know the reason. But I still consider it to be sharp enough for FP. Wilfredor (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Support Still very good and beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)- Support --RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not special enough, sorry. -- Karelj (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- ??? ★ 02:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is his opinion and should be respected. Wilfredor (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would just ask him to talk more about it. ★ 10:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- people have the liberty to voice their subjective opinions without justifying themselves. Let's avoid overreacting to differing viewpoints; after all, everyone is entitled to their own 'not wow' feelings Wilfredor (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would just ask him to talk more about it. ★ 10:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is his opinion and should be respected. Wilfredor (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- ??? ★ 02:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
SupportFP even though little pitfalls on the left. Rarely you can see this place without people. -- Terragio67 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I had to wait a long time Wilfredor (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that some stuff was cloned out from the wall beyond the door? If so, I suggest tidying it up (the shadows look odd and there's something peeking on the left) and adding a retouched picture template. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- nothing was cloned, maybe someone passed by quickly? Wilfredor (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're referring to a different shot? The image above seems a modified version of this one: [1]. Personally I don't have an issue with cloning stuff out, provided it is well made and clearly stated in the file description. Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I already remembered, this was not a clone but an elimination with Photoshop AI Wilfredor (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Will strike out my vote if these manipulations are improved and clearly disclosed (e.g., retouched picture template and Digitally manipulated photographs category). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks JulesVerneX2 for having had this glance, I was naive in believing that there was no one there... Wilfredor, please, I will also wait for you to finish your retouches with PS before eventually changing my opinion. Terragio67 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I have to agree that the retouching looks incomplete in the door. I have no objections about cloning out (in whatever way) passers-by, bystanders etc., but it should be done properly. Sorry for not noticing this earlier and thanks to Julesvernex2 for the hint. Happy to support when the retouching is completed and documented. – Aristeas (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I will try to do a better job, I confess that Photoshop AI usually does everything automatically, although it is also poorly done when looking at it in more detail. I'm also going to look for other photos I took of that entry without the people to combine them, maybe it's better than cloning Wilfredor (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2, Terragio67, and Aristeas: I always maintain transparency with my edits, which is why I upload the original images unaltered. Thanks Julesvernex2 for notify in this instance, there were no people in front of the structure, which is unusual as I had to wait a long time for them to leave. The individuals crossing through the doorway were removed using cloning. I have also reinstated a sign that was completely removed in the previous version; this exit sign is a permanent fixture. I added the retouch template too. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I will try to do a better job, I confess that Photoshop AI usually does everything automatically, although it is also poorly done when looking at it in more detail. I'm also going to look for other photos I took of that entry without the people to combine them, maybe it's better than cloning Wilfredor (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Will strike out my vote if these manipulations are improved and clearly disclosed (e.g., retouched picture template and Digitally manipulated photographs category). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I already remembered, this was not a clone but an elimination with Photoshop AI Wilfredor (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're referring to a different shot? The image above seems a modified version of this one: [1]. Personally I don't have an issue with cloning stuff out, provided it is well made and clearly stated in the file description. Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- nothing was cloned, maybe someone passed by quickly? Wilfredor (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that some stuff was cloned out from the wall beyond the door? If so, I suggest tidying it up (the shadows look odd and there's something peeking on the left) and adding a retouched picture template. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I had to wait a long time Wilfredor (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)