Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Church of San Juan el Real in Calatayud

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

Church of San Juan el Real in Calatayud, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 10:34:23 (UTC)

I don't understand this conversation to be honest. If I replace these HDR shots with the long exposure frames then you'd complain about burnt lights. There is no other way that I know of to capture the typically long dynamic range within a church without using HDR, do you? Poco2 19:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: I agree with Poco a poco on that. HDR is the way to go to properly capture the large dynamic range of light in these settings. Doing good HDR processing is challenging though, and it can easily turn out with an artificial look. However, if you do it properly and do not "turn the knobs" too much it can give you a very faithful reepresentation close to what you sense with the logarithmic response in your eyes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the EXIF metadata are misleading as you get the impression it is a single exposure shot, and I would recommend, as I have done previously, to add {{Photo Information}} templates on the file pages, as it allows to specifiy several exposure times and state how the image has been created, see here for an example. In that example there were (also) light sources with greatly varying color temperatures, and I used gradient color temperature filters in Lightroom to make it look more realistic (white should be aproximately white everywhere in the picture). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: I've added the {{Photo Information}} template to all images. I compared again all picture and came to the conclusion that the last one was a bit off in comparison to the others and "cooled" it a bit. Poco2 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Poco a poco. I will abstain from voting as the colors just do not look too good to me, and I am dissapointed at seeing the Goya paintings, but as I have not been there and do not know what it really looks like, it could also be me, who is wrong. The last picture looks more "right" to me now. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: as said that frame was actually a bit off the others, both perception and temperature point of view. Do you expect that all images have exactly the same temperature? Poco2 19:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco: No, I just think some of the images have a too yellow tint, especially no. 1 and 4. For instance. I find it odd that the entire organ and the organ pipes have such a yellow color cast. I know that is the surroundings are yellow you will also get yellow reflections in the pipes, but still.... it just does not look right to me. But to re-iterate, I have not been there, so I do not know how it should look like. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- King of 03:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I think this is a great series of shots of a beautiful church, and nominating the photos as a set was the way to go. One request: Please be specific in the "Description" lines for each file in describing what part of the church we are seeing, just as you do in this set nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Excellent quality and an interesting subject. A pity that there's this person visible in the lower left corner of the first picture (and these panels with the pieces of paper look a little bit messy, too, which of course isn't your fault). I think the white balance is correct. However, before supporting I'd suggest you add a geocode to each description page. It would also be nice if you could add some information about your HDR processing as already suggested above. --Code (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Code: I've cloned out the head of the lady in the bottom left corner of the first frame. I've also added geodata to all images in the set (and also to the category) along with the shutter speed of each HDR image. Poco2 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support On thumb size theses pictures look amazing, however, I must confess that the result was not as expected corners out of focus or deformed, color temperature look a bit overprocessed to me and people in the images. The same with the overdone noise reduction and oversharpening. I understand that my criticism is somewhat strong, however, my comparison is exclusively with other images of the same FP cat. Except for everything said, in my opinion, these images continue at the FP level --The Photographer 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Photographer: No problem with strong criticism, as long as it is fair. Can you please be more concrete and add a few notes (e.g. sharpening halos or overprocessing)? That corners are not as sharp as other areas is normal. Btw, I didn't apply any denoising and just standard sharpening and uploaded the files in full resolution after perspective correction. Poco2 19:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done A day ago I added a notes about the problem. Please, let me know if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 12:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco2 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings