Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 171-173 HDR.JPG

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 171-173 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 05:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 171-173 HDR.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 171-173 HDR.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info View of the main nave of the church and Monastery of St. Francis, Quito, Ecuador. The Roman Catholic temple, finalized in the 16th-century, is the largest architetural ensemble among the historical structures of colonial Latin America. The church is also featured by the mixture of different architecture styles as its construction took 150 years. All by me, Poco² 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Splendid. I think some viewers will suggest that the people who weren't there long enough to be fully exposed should be edited out of the picture, but I think that most viewers will understand what happened and accept it. Either way, I support the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support splendid it is! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 08:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely golden tones, great angle and rich detail. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Diego, as you know I'm a big fan of your work. This one looks a bit overprocessed. Have you tried toning down the HDR effects just slightly? Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. Noticed today that we'll both be in Berlin in April. Can't wait to see you in person again :-)

  Hello Frank, I will look into it this evening (CET) and see what can I do. Poco² 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) PD: Thanks for your words! Indeed, we'll meet in Berlin soon. I'm looking forward to being there :)

  Frank: I've uploaded a new version. I have compared the HDR with one of the original frames and made some slight adjustments in the curves. I am though not really sure that the result is overprocessed when I look at the original frames. Please, have a look to the result, if you like, I can also update one of the original frames so that you can compare. Poco² 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

   Support Thanks for the adjustments. I think part of the issue was how my brain dealt with the abundance of the church interior ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings