Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpg

File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 05:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I notice there's a de.wikipedia article about this Ulrich II. von Ernau, but no en.wikipedia article. Would it help to include his birth and death date in the description? Was this epitaph built shortly after his death? In any case, the subject is interesting enough and the photo good enough for me to support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, Ikan, for your interest and suggestion. Ulrich II. von Ernau was born in 1531 in Moosburg, Carinthia, Austria and he died on November 3rd, 1607 in Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria. The Italian Renaissance sculptor Martin Pacobello created this epitaph only two years after von Ernau`s death in 1609. It is considered to be one of the finest Renaissence reliefs in all of Carinthia. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I think, the white balance should be checked, see the other pictures of the same situation. [1] --Hubertl 08:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks, Hupo, for your constructive proposal. I changed the WB settings towards “NORMAL” and uploaded this new version. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment - That picture is also by Johann Jaritz. I presume he finds this picture more accurate, but since he took both, he could certainly speak to this. What do you say, Johann? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thanks, Ikan, for asking. Yes, both photographs are mine. The previous was made with the church door on the left hand opened, whereas the latter was taken with the shut door and with the camera on top of a tripod. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support now it´s ok! Thanks, Hans! --Hubertl 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose It seems to me that you have a mix of different light sources (I'd guess at least some warm, artificial light from the right and some colder natural light from the left?), which makes white balance very difficult. If you adjust for the warm light source, the highlights cast by the cold one will look blue; if you adjust for the cold one the rest will look yellow; if you go for something in-between it will still look kind of weird. The composition doesn't really work for me as well, with the corners at the bottom left and right cut like that. Going wider at the sides and top might work better, or cropping closer to the main subject at the sides and bottom. Anyway, to be honest: there's nothing awesome about his image to me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, El Grafo, for your honest opinion. I am learning quite a lot from this to make it better next time. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I actually like the contrast created by the different light sources. Not something museums usually do. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low noise and fine detail. I'm not sure about the colour but you were there. Your first version does look too blue but this is really yellow. Is the marble that colour? Your older photo File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 21032013 366.jpg seems more neutral and is certainly white not yellow. But the older photo shows the potential for getting side-light whereas this looks like it was taken on a dull day with no directional light. Compare the pattern on his belly to see the difference the side light makes to the form. Here, I think the sculpture is just a bit too hard to make out, though the detail is there when you look closely. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks, Colin, for your in-depth review and specified comments on the issues of that image. I made up my mind and tried to get the best possible result from another edit. Hopefully the outcome is more convenient to your eyes. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Looks like a good representation to me now. — Julian H.^✈ 08:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects