Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Interior da Catedral de Amiens by Jules Victor Genisson, 1842.jpg/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Interior da Catedral de Amiens by Jules Victor Genisson, 1842.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 20:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Interior of the Cathedral of Amiens, by Jules Victor Génisson, oil on carvas, 1842. Located currently in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Support I heard "more paintings"? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)- Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I have restored the original version uploaded by The Photographer as the edit Arion made reduced the filesize by half so must have lost information. If we think a small crop off the top is beneficial, this could be done by Wilfredo or using a lossless crop tool. (Ping @Livioandronico2013: , @Uoaei1: ) -- Colin (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I thought it was another one of David's submissions at first
. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- So did I! Detail at 100% is inferior though. Inferior 19th century technology.... ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diliff, impressive vertical angle-of-view , no "vertical perspective distortion" and the stained glass isn't blown! He's kept the shadows dark rather than be tempted to lift them. Génisson managed to capture people in his painting, which is something you have to avoid, and he got interesting people rather than tourists in anoraks. So perhaps his technology isn't so bad. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Counterpoints: Stained glass is not blown but there is a lot of noise and banding in the shadows. Vertical angle of view is not more than most of my church interior panoramas (and benefits from a perspective probably 4-5 metres above the cathedral floor). 'Exposure time' is in the region of days, weeks or months rather than seconds or minutes. Tourists are not as aesthetic or aesthetic but I suppose they are no less genuine for the period. Anyway, it's silly to compare. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- From the EXIF I see he's painting Canon and their artist materials are about 5 years behind everyone else's (though I admit they have an extensive collection of brushes). -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I must confess I've had trouble understanding what you two are talking about. You are a hopeless case --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if it doesn't translate. I'm just gently mocking Diliff's brand of camera. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I know :D, It is a pity that no women here, so we would have a more pleasant nominations with fresh opinions and different PoV. --The Photographer (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if it doesn't translate. I'm just gently mocking Diliff's brand of camera. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I must confess I've had trouble understanding what you two are talking about. You are a hopeless case --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- From the EXIF I see he's painting Canon and their artist materials are about 5 years behind everyone else's (though I admit they have an extensive collection of brushes). -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Counterpoints: Stained glass is not blown but there is a lot of noise and banding in the shadows. Vertical angle of view is not more than most of my church interior panoramas (and benefits from a perspective probably 4-5 metres above the cathedral floor). 'Exposure time' is in the region of days, weeks or months rather than seconds or minutes. Tourists are not as aesthetic or aesthetic but I suppose they are no less genuine for the period. Anyway, it's silly to compare. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Diliff, impressive vertical angle-of-view , no "vertical perspective distortion" and the stained glass isn't blown! He's kept the shadows dark rather than be tempted to lift them. Génisson managed to capture people in his painting, which is something you have to avoid, and he got interesting people rather than tourists in anoraks. So perhaps his technology isn't so bad. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- So did I! Detail at 100% is inferior though. Inferior 19th century technology.... ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice reproduction. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Question Are dimensions stated correct ? It deosnt seem to be almost 1:1, or its cropped original ? Otherwise good photo. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your question. This is the original photo, however, this is ~98% of the total size of the painting, at the top there is a small cut of a few pixels high, you can compare this with the other version. The court is due to brightness problems in the room , the top frame creates a dark shadow over the painting without detail. It is important to emphasize that this was not a digital cut, was a cut in the composition. I will try upload raw file to commonsarchive this weekend --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Religion
