Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpg

File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 05:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
•  Info Pulpit in the Jesuit church, Vienna, all by -- Hubertl 05:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hubertl 05:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Perhaps a touch blurry at full size in the lower left and right corners, but excellent at full screen size and a really good picture of a beautiful scene, nonetheless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment There's some CA at the windows which should be removed, otherwise very good. --Code (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA repaired... Thanks, Code --Hubertl 11:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. It does feel a bit cramped, with the pillars on either side, but I like the idea. Diliff (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This church is going to be the most featured one, thanks to Hubertl! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment The horizontal perspective is a little off by the way. It is especially visible at the bottom of the image. I think it disturbs a little as the picture is pretty symmetrical otherwise. --Ximonic (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment thanks Ximonic, it´s symetrical even horizontal now. --Hubertl 16:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Support Thank you for the effort. Doesn't bother me now :) --Ximonic (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Temporary  Oppose, the white balance feels too blue to me, given that the arcs are probably roughtly neutral grey. Also a bit dark but I guess that's ok given the light conditions. Interesting idea with the composition. — Julian H.^✈ 08:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment  Done Interesting effect, changing the white balance and reducing the blueish makes it a bit brighter too. Thanks for reviewing, Julian --Hubertl 08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support, thank you. — Julian H.^✈ 08:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Hubertl: Actually, I just looked at it again and there is something weird going on there. In the top centre, where there are a few small overexposed spots, the clipped areas seem to turn black for some reason. Any idea why this is happening/how to fix this? — Julian H.^✈ 08:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Julian I fixed it, I presume, it was a mixture of spot lights, natural lights and HDR-Processing with Photomatix. I don´t really know why. But thanks, so I can avoid it maybe with the next series. --Hubertl 09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hubertl, if you're using Photomatix for the HDR processing, I would recommend that you try Lightroom instead, as it is superior (In my opinion) for HDR processing. You have a lot more control over the result, especially with the use of adjustment brushes. If you only have an older version of Lightroom (4 or 5) and not Lightroom 6 which has built-in HDR merging, you could still merge the images to HDR in Photomatix but instead of doing the tone mapping, you can just save merged but unprocessed HDR file as a 32 bit TIFF and then import that TIFF into Lightroom. Just a suggestion. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I did the tone mapping with PS (I had LR 5.xx at this time), but the results are bad, so I tried Photomatix, with quite good results. I never tried it with LR later (I have 6.xx) because I thought, it´s the same engine as in PS. But thanks for your hint, David, I will try the next one with LR. --Hubertl 09:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you had bad results with Lightroom, even LR5. It's always been superior to Photomatix for me. Photomatix has a bad habit of oversaturating colours and losing the natural tones of a scene. And of course you cannot be selective about the processing - the whole scene must be processed with the same settings - with Lightroom you can process one area in one way and another area in another way, using strong highlight recovery only on specific areas (this is vital for my church interiors where the stained glass is still overexposed even with strong tone mapping in Photomatix). Anyway, I can only recommend that you use the tools that work for you, but I'm surprised by your comments about LR. Perhaps it could be the method used rather than the ability of the tool itself. Diliff (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I´m working on it... --Hubertl 10:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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