Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Essen Germany Interior-of-BMV-Church-01.jpg

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

File:Essen Germany Interior-of-BMV-Church-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done There was a slight pincushion distortion which is now corrected. For the verticals: I used the cables of the lamps and I was assuming homogenous gravity in the church. For the resolution: As usual I uploaded the full resolution of my camera. More is not available and I think, that ISO 125 is good enough for the situation. I shot on available light and refused the offer of Sister Dorothea to switch on the lights. There are some coloured lights visible where I have to mention, that it is not a chromatic aberration but the filtered light of the stained glass. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose First pillar from left side has huge CA, while at second some CA is still visible, while some is like cleared but pillar is missing there, like bad retousching. Right side, strong CA on windows. See note. --Mile (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC) **Mile, I don't think this is CA but simply the strong light bleeding over the edge, which I think an effect that is hard to avoid. The second pillar has a strange stepped pattern on its left edge -- is that an effect of sharpening/clarity/rotation/etc? -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I haven't saw it so far to such extent-depth. I am not sure you see same with bare eye. I couldn't find any similar, like here. I will put to neutral for now. --Mile (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I liked the composition and looked at the image. Thought to myself "Nice image, but should have been shot from a tripod to avoid the high ISO". Then I looked at the exif and was in for a shock. It's a bit stunning how poor even the best Canons are at shadow recovery, but to mitigate this, HDR should have been used (the windows are also blown). The image has a lot of illustrative value for articles, but with respect to the quality, I do not think that it can really be among the best church interiors we have. I realize that perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but the great view could be executed much better imho. --DXR (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Info It was shot from tripod with mirror lock and remote control. Sure, HDR might have ended up in a better result, but I am not the big friend of HDR, that's why you rarely find a HDR among my photos. I am not sure, if everyone can imagine the light situation: It is a dim light in the church and all light is filtered through coloured glas. The very intense coloured light is also outshining the frames of the windows. It looks like CA, but it is not. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand that the term HDR has been spoiled for many by those who use it to make tasteless/creative (pick your flavor) unrealistic adjustments that render images useless for wiki. But the logic behind the concept is sound and shadow noise and blown windows can be easily reduced or avoided using it, and with sensible processing the results won't look fake or bad. This is especially valid for cameras with sub-par dynamic range at low ISOs. I understand people who dislike HDR, but inside the church, it very often becomes an essential tool. --DXR (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not condemn HDR in general but sometimes, I am a little bit oldschool and in my opinion, it is often possible to get a reasonable result with a single shot. Well, there are prospects for another shooting in the monastery during midday sun (the colours are different then) and I will remember to try a HDR from same position. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think HDR is usually required to get stained-glass in range. Here it could be better, it isn't too bad IMO, and I've seen too many HDR stained glass where the "Ow! Ow! My eyes hurt" bright white is rendered merely paper white. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the term 'HDR' is too often associated with really bad over-processed tone mapping that makes everything look muddy and weird, but it doesn't have to be that way - the result depends entirely on how strongly it is applied, the quality of the source image and what software is used to do it. To simply associate HDR so negatively is a bit like saying that a terrible photo taken with an expensive top of the line camera must mean the camera is terrible. And although the technical quality of this image is 'okay', it could have been much better. The noise levels of the shadows could have been as you would normally expect of ISO 100. Consider this recent image of mine. The exterior light wasn't as strong, but the interior was much darker so the contrast between highlights and shadows is likely to be similar. It was shot at ISO 320 which would normally result in quite a lot of shadow noise, particularly if pushed a lot. But because I used HDR with a 'slightly overexposed for shadows' bracket shot, I was able to get an image without any noise in any of the shadow areas. That simply wouldn't be possible with a single image, particularly with the low dynamic range of the Canon sensors. Diliff (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (weak) While I agree with DXR that it could be much better, I don't find the noise is that dramatic, and it doesn't look like to come from shadow recovery (doing so on Canons usually gives you non aesthetic banding. See full size image). From a technical point of view, it's certainly at least as good -I'd say better- as many church interior which have been recently promoted and the lighting is just too good to miss. - Benh (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. Surprised that Slaunger didn't already mention that it has an AdobeRGB profile embedded. But not only that, according to the exif viewer, "The embedded color profile differs from the metadata tags (sRGB (EXIF:ColorSpace))". Diliff (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slaunger's away just now. I spotted that the other day but forgot about it till you mentioned it. Yes, there's something wrong with the JPG tags not matching the profile. Cccefalon, I had a look at some of your other photos and they have the same problem -- what are you doing that screws up the profile/tags? And see my Browser Test page for why AdobeRGB is best avoided -- about half of Wikipedia's viewers are using mobile devices, none of which are colour managed, so all display dull desaturated images if you use AdobeRGB. And only a tiny fraction of a percentage of viewers will have wide-gamut desktop displays that are actually capable of displaying any extra colours that AdobeRGB retains. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Upon the hints on your talk page, I found the culprit. Should be fixed now. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Essen_Germany_Interior-of-BMV-Church-01.jpg&oldid=167894863"