Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte - Interno - Cesena (Italy).jpg

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

File:Abbazia di Santa Maria del Monte - Interno - Cesena (Italy).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 18:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Internal view of the Santa Maria del Monte Abbey, ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy.
  •  Oppose. I don't find this image engaging, and I don't understand why you decided to shoot it this way. The frog's perspective is unjustified, the interesting altar disappears dominated by walls, and if anything catches attention here it is the shiny floor.  podstawko  ●talk  11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Podstawko, to see the details of the base of the Altar, it is necessary to go to the upper part of the Abbey, above the 18 steps. Instead, to take this shot I moved just outside the central main entrance, where there are other steps going down. The lowest angle I used allows you to see much of the Renaissance work above the altar very well. This was my intent. Terragio67 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose both versions per Tagooty and Benh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative HDR Image[edit]

Internal view of the Santa Maria del Monte Abbey, ancient Benedictine monastery located on the Spaziano Hill in Cesena, Italy.
  •  Info The Santa Maria del Monte Abbey was founded around the year 1001 and completed in 1026. In 1177, he welcomed Emperor Frederick Barbarossa as a guest, who gave him his full protection. The monastery has a rich history and is home to a statue of the Madonna, which was brought there in 1318. During the Renaissance in Italy, it began to take on the appearance it has today; in fact, inside the abbey there are frescoes and works of art of historical value from the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond. The lower angle chosen to take the shot, allows you to see part of it. A curiosity: the colored marbles visible around the altar are fake, they are paintings created by skilled Renaissance artists. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Exposure is fine, detail and composition are borderline to me. --Tagooty (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tranquil and interesting church interior. The composition/crop is unusual, of course, but it’s true that the low point of view allows us to see more of the Renaissance frescoes (?) above the altar, so this composition has its merits. --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right to use the question mark between the parentheses. Between 1536 and 1548, the abbey took on the appearance it has today, among the frescoes there are still some works by Francesco Masini. In 1768 a devastating earthquake partially destroyed the dome. In 1774 Giuseppe Milani was commissioned to restore the frescoes. He was authorized to maintain and recover what was possible and was authorized to carry out new works. The latter (you are right) do not belong to the Renaissance. I added some images note... Terragio67 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Come on guys. The bar is super high for our church interior. No way we are saying this is as good as what we have. Where to start? No wow. Don't think the angle is wide enough for a church interior. Very unsharp. Very unfortunate and distracting horizontal bars, which are going through the supposedly interesting paintings. Camera on the floor making the benches more prominent than they should... - Benh (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benh: I'm not sure what "wow" means in the context of a church interior, since a photographer's creative choices are highly limited. For me a church interior is FP if the subject is reasonably interesting, the composition does justice to the subject, and the technical quality and execution are excellent. -- King of ♥ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, I would have hung most of Diliff interiors in my living room, not only because they were technically perfect, but also because they were framed with taste and provided sense of scale, epic and marvel. All of which are missing here. - Benh (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Benh. --Yann (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Strange POV and lacks detail, Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. -- King of ♥ 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose both versions per Tagooty and Benh. But consider nominating for COM:VIC. It's a good, useful photo, especially with all that labeling, just not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is good and interesting, but not completely in focus or, if you prefer, sufficiently detailed. This issue appears to be similar to previous FP nominations as well. At the moment I believe that the lens I use may be unsuitable in certain situations. I purchased a new Canon M 55-200 lens and I have already tried some photos on a painting from the 1500s with surprising results considering the difficulties linked to artificial lighting. As always thank you all, I always appreciate your genuine and constructive comments.
     I withdraw my nomination --Terragio67 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]