Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support But, could you add some details about how these shots were made on the file page as well as state the projection and software used? (I guess it is basically the same recipe, which you recently explained in quite some detail to Benh). For instance, use the {{Panorama}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about how well the image generation process shall be documented

- I could, but it's frustrating and quite time consuming to explain how I created every single panorama. There's a lot of details to explain and I create a lot of images. ;-) Also, I don't think the template has the necessary fields... The number of frames doesn't explain how many rows and columns, or how many exposures per frame. Maybe it should be more about the beauty of the finished product that is created rather than how it was created. Diliff (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand if you think that particular template is not well suited, it was just a proposal. But, please document your method somehow. When people in 100 years wonder how such fantastic shots could be made with the mediocre technology of 2014, it is nice that it is documented how you managed to do it anyway . Maybe you can even make a user template for your interior panos, such that you only have to specify a few values, such as the number of exposures and their spread, number of rows and columns of images, aperture, ISO, projection. Surely, this information must be available in your panorama "Projects" (depending on what software you use). At least it is for me when I use PTgui. I mean your high productivity of these extremely Awesome! shots is highly appreciated, but I think it is a little bit laid back not wanting to use the after all limited time it takes to document the process used when nominating for FPC. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess you're right, since we can only nominate two images per week, we can spare the time to document them! I use PTGui also, and yes all the information is in the project files. I just have to go back and dig it up. There is of course a lot of detailed work involved that isn't so easily explained with camera values and "x rows * y columns * z exposures" though. Diliff (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure this helps to convince you, but I second Slaunger here. After all, I joined the project after seeing one of your "awesome" photos, and I bet I'm not the only one. Even the free Hugin, which I use, automatically adds relevant details (FOV, projection) into the EXIF upon completion of the panorama. Maybe yours can be setup to do the same? - Benh (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Thanks for being open to the idea. If only you get the most essential information there it will be a big improvement. Of course you do not have to flesh out all the details such that any other person could exactly reproduce the end result based on the source images. The objective is to get an idea about how it was done. --Slaunger (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Benh, PTGui automatically adds details to the EXIF too (although I don't think it includes projection), but it often gets stripped in post production (I usually export an HDR 32 bit TIF from PTGui and then process it further in Lightroom). Most of my images do have complete EXIF data. But really only the ISO and aperture are reliable. The shutter speed in these HDR images is not one value (since there are usually 3 or 5 exposures), and the equivalent focal length of the panorama is usually wrong too because it applies to the field of view when processing the panorama in PTGui and isn't the true field of view after cropping. So I wouldn't trust much of the EXIF data that is produced anyway. Diliff (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "photoshopped" kitsch for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it photoshopped/kitsch to you? All images receive processing (even if just to convert the sensor data into a JPG in camera) but calling something photoshopped usually implies that misrepresentation has occurred. This image is basically how the altar truly looks. The only real out of the ordinary processing is in recovering the stained glass detail. It's hard to show you equivalent photos though because as St Paul's Cathedral usually restricts photography, there really aren't any other decent quality photos of this high altar in existence on the web. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this image is an tonemapping/HDR image. The saturation looks to strong for me = "photoshopped". I think also you know its meaning. It will be also better for us all, to add more info's about your work: camera, lens, from how images it was made, the exposures etc.. At least that would be very interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is tone mapped, as are most of my interior images. I can add this extra information but it won't prove or disprove that the subject is accurately represented. HDR images can be processed to look realistic (which is what I always aim for), and regular single exposures can be processed to look unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - An "accurately represented" image is a matter of opinion. I think the red canal and the saturation are a bit to strong. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) P.S: this is only "one" oppose. I know, your image will be anyway featured :-) And that is also OK for me![reply]
        Yes, of course it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the saturation in the image, nothing looks unrealistic to me. I don't mind opposes when they are reasonable, I just disagree with yours this time. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so I'd like to believe you. I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "photoshopped" kitsch for me too. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've confused me. Are you saying that you're supporting this "photoshopped" kitsch, or you've accidentally supported it but meant to oppose, or you're disagreeing with Alchemist HP in some kind of obscure way? ;-) Diliff (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the latter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want more kitsch like this. ;o) Yann (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support St Paul's has been described as "a lasting monument to the glory of God". If it requires Photoshop techniques to capture-on-camera and render-on-screen some of that glory, then I'm sure God approves of Photoshop. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just superb. Nikhil (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole photo is pure pleasure, especially the beautiful ceiling. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Navigation menu

Search