Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpg

File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 11:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Late baroque is leveling those state-of-art frescoes. I still like to scroll up and down and always see something interesting. Put city (and state) in description. --Mile (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) p.S. Oil on canvas, and category should be religious bld...
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Question What does it represent ? Who painted this ? Isn't the denoising too strong ? Who is the pope owner of the CoA ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Everything is written in the description Jebulon, why you do not read the description? What do I put in? And for denoising I have not put (are 100 iso) I do not know.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Nice place and good details however I would have lowered the saturation (at least -20 in photoshop) and increased a bit the contrast. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Christian,merci --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Neutral Thanks, it's an improvment. I think Benh is right for the clarity. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose I'm suspicious about WB, and clarity is pushed a bit too far. Very nice otherwise. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Ok loss clarity (-24) and correct WB,now? Thanx --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Massively overprocessed. Compare this and this. -- Colin (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Better description indeed, thank you. I've created a new category for the category:Coats of arms of Benedictus XIV, which did not exist. For the rest, I agree with opposers. IMO, you have to step back from your original file. The succession of processing makes the picture strange now. --Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)