Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg

File:Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 10:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment yes, the image is significantly underexposed - but this can be easily fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support better and imo sufficient --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's actually a very good painting, however, ISO 400 and f/9 is not a good choise, too much jpeg artifacts, Nikon D5200 can give more size resolution. Please ask the tripod permition and take it in raw using almost 3 expositions +5,0,-5 --The Photographer (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment apart that was taken in raw ... really I should use a tripod? and really I should ask for a permit? thank you. Aside from the obvious they gave me a few seconds and I had to prepare quickly. I do not understand why comment and then oppose ... is faster to do everything at once --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well ask for is ever fine, maybe you are overprocessing the RAW --The Photographer (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For me not...probably yes for you--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose - This is not as clear as usual for you. The side panels don't seem of sufficient quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support @The Photographer: Yes, paintings by Antonio Allegri da Correggio are generally noted as "very good"...... Otherwise, I disagree with opposers. The artificial light makes this ceiling special enough in light and composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My comments were not about the light, but maybe (Because I can't see the RAW file) about a combination of hight noise, too DoF and overprocessing resulting in jpeg artifacts and details problems, however, it's only MHO --The Photographer (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't address light or composition in my remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Question What's that black dot in the middle? Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How you can see in this other version, it's a painting inperfection --The Photographer (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. IMO, it is a small hole for a cable and a chandelier.--Jebulon (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I'd probably remove the dot Daniel points out, but then I'm far from a purist. INeverCry 03:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment For Daniel Case and INeverCry:"The interior of the dome may also be illuminated by a spot in the top hole that can be opened, or closed by skylight, or surmounted by a lantern, crowning element of similarity small round temple in gender windowed". Thanks. For The Photographer But what you're making? Imperfection? but if there is also the other photos ... strange this your way to do. Very strange. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What I was trying to explain with "it's a painting inperfection" It's about the painting not your photo --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support − Meiræ 08:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support now that I know the black dot is there IRL. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting and very good for me. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects