Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 08:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful subject, lighting, and a nice perspective. The image is slightly soft at 100%, even in the central, brighter areas, which I think may be caused by NR. For me, however, this doesn't unduly detract from the image. --Baresi F (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support The light and colors make the difference. Good quality. Yann (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for the future FP standard Overexposed the left window, looks like painted with white color. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion Laitche, however, in the medieval Catholic churches is an effect due to have that within you see that served to illuminate the statue of the Madonna (being in the Middle Ages without electricity). However, the window is very small compared to the pictures and do not think it's so annoying, こんにちは.--LivioAndronico talk 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not so annoying, but it looks artificial compared with the right window. --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not artificial Laitche, indeed, a lights from the east and the other from the west, to take advantage of the sunlight, as you see there aren't other windows,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't say it's artificial, I said it looks artificial. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- sunlight looks artificial...I don't understand --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, Baresi F described this as soft cause by NR, but I can't believe that photos need NR which is taken with ISO 100, so I think it's unsharp compared with current church interior FPs. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Having the church different illuminations even at 100 ISO is created a bit of noise which must be reduced in PP. However before you oppose to one thing and then you come out the other, better let it go that is better, thanks anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you insist that, I can say nothing, and thanks for the following comment.(Sorry, this have lots of reasons to oppose so I didn't want to write all...) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- There can be many reasons why it has NR at ISO 100. Livio may have increased the shadows brightness which would introduce noise even at ISO 100. It is a scene with a lot of dynamic range, and it is probably as good as it can be with a single exposure. Nothing could have saved the white window, cameras simply don't have enough dynamic range capabilities in their sensors to capture bright sunlight detail at the same time as a dark interior detail. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've considered the technical limit of single exposure by 24Mpx with APS-C, and I think this shot is insufficient luminous at this scene + this sensor for a FP bar. And after I read your comment of supporting vote, I think it's not good thing that an adjustment the FP standard by each individual, but it's OK for now. --Laitche (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't adjust the FP standard for each individual - that's an assumption you've made. I've opposed many of Livio's church interiors before. I simply wanted to point out that he has improved his photography (composition, processing, and overall image sharpness) and this image has reached the minimum standard for me to support it. Diliff (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I received your intention(means you've not adjust). --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It 'a thought, I tried to explain, then if you believe ... fun.I like the comparison if it is constructive.--LivioAndronico talk 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, If you want to portray a mood of the Middle Ages without electricity, that yellow electric light is so annoying.(If only.) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Next time I enter and turn off at my liking, but please--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support good imho --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support nice photo --Charles (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Not perfect, but one of the better interior photos by Livio, and I think it is a big improvement on his previous images. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Moderate support While I wonder if the white balance on the ambient light from outside could be better corrected, the central portion more than makes up for that (that crepuscular ray is just priceless). Like David says, not perfect but more than good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose until you add back the color space. Very nice ray of light otherwise. A bit dark also, but a definite improvement over previous ones, which I wanted to point out. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- And how you would add to the color space? I honestly do not know what you mean Benh--LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know... because I don't have much clue about what your workflow looks like. I've sorted out that Wladyslaw had an issue with his Gimp (probably his settings), but you don't seem to use it. If I had to bet on your case, it would be on Paint.net. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- And when you don't know something, check Wikipedia (you know, that little encyclopedia we are all contributing to somehow ;-) ) Color space. There's even an Italian version. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- But I used Photoshop CC,boh...anyway,ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would be unsatisfied to leave this issue pending. Can you tell us more about your workflow? From the moment you take the picture to the moment you upload it to Wikipedia. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- after taking the photo I drive, dinner (I joke ).... still nothing that, I adjusted the perspective, cut, added a bit of sharpness and a slight NR. Then a bit of contrast, raised a little brightness and added a few of color ... end--LivioAndronico talk 22:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was more asking how you import the photo in your computer. How exactly do you open it? Photoshop? ACR? Lightroom? Something else? How is it saved at the end? Can you check ur exif at each stage of your workflow to find out the faulty link? - Benh (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I open the nef with camera raw and later with photoshop,and save in jpg...not very complicated --LivioAndronico talk 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- This photo has been through "paint.net 4.0.5", it says so in the EXIF. I can't trust the colours. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- From exif : Software used Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)--LivioAndronico talk 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- See "Creator Tool" tag. This has definitely been touched by Paint.NET which imo shouldn't go near any FP photographs. Sure, Photoshop has also been used, but Photoshop CC does not remove colourspace tags. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ops....I really sorry,I had done something without remembering, the fact remains that I was wrong and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- What do you have to use Paint.net for when you have a Photoshop? Can't you just reprocess and skip Paint.net? I'm concerned that not so many look to care about colors accuracy... - Benh (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ops....I really sorry,I had done something without remembering, the fact remains that I was wrong and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- See "Creator Tool" tag. This has definitely been touched by Paint.NET which imo shouldn't go near any FP photographs. Sure, Photoshop has also been used, but Photoshop CC does not remove colourspace tags. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- From exif : Software used Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)--LivioAndronico talk 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice view for sure, but it doesn't look real to me. The lighting is odd blue and white and yellow that I do not see in any other photo of this cathedral. The shaft of light looks painted-on. And close up the whole thing looks like a painting rather than a photo. I suspect this is a combination of aggressive NR, clarity and sharpening. And the lack of colourspace tag that Benh notes is also an issue. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you believe--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support nice real view, nice light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support You are getting my support (for the first time, I guess) here. The execution is not really at FP level: some areas are gone due to overexposure, the picture is overall too dark, I miss contrast, detail is not the best, the bottom crop can be improved, it doesn't look as real as it should (this is IMHO an issue in your processing) but the motif in this case and the effect of the lighting surpasses the mentioned problems. I suggest you to keep on working in your photographic skills, development and -if possible- equipment and go back to this place in one year, and then ask us to replace this FP by an even better one. If you don't do it, it could be me who shows up over there :) Poco2 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want your support here given that what you write is more negative than positive Poco2, I do not understand --LivioAndronico talk 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, it is not polite to those who supported me--LivioAndronico talk 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Besides, since you have a short memory will remember this --LivioAndronico talk 09:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but I am owner of my votes. Please, don't do that again. Poco2 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are right, forgot that. I will ask my doctor to get a stronger medication, thanks. Poco2 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality's not bad, but still no wow for me. --A.Savin 16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Voting ended this morning. — Julian H.✈ 15:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors