Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica[edit]

Reason: A good quality image and very beautiful.
Articles this image appears in: Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica
Creator: JeremyA

Support as nominator Bewareofdog 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment it looks as if it has undergone a lot of noise reduction. de Bivort 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - spectacular, lifts the article and informs. Is it perhaps a bit too bright here? - it seems more toned in the article but perhaps it depends on the slant of the LCD. Also I wish I could blot out that line of wall lights which puts support a bit on the edge. Motmit (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is rather grainy and the lights are all unattractively blown out. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, would support a slightly darker version. --Janke | Talk 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It can be nit-picked, but I don't think this shot could be substantially improved upon. faithless (^speak) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious pincushion distortion, very blown highlights, too much NR. Surprised this made QI - doesn't say much for the QI review process. Mfield (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very strange effects surrounding the lights. And the ceiling at the top of the picture is a bit weird. crassic!^[talk] 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could nit-pick at the small details but as a whole this is a well done work. Lipton sale (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would someone mind uploading an edit fixing the tilt? I might consider a weak support if that problem were dealt with. NauticaShad e s 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go, resulting in Edit1. It's about as close as I could get without major work. There's some pretty interlinking distortions going on. Mfield (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. That's good enough for me. Nice job. NauticaShad e s 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to weak oppose Maybe it's my computer screen, but I don't see where it's grainy. I do, however, see that the lights are way too bright, and IMO that is the biggest detraction from the image. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Looking at it in the browser window and then even more so at 100%, edges of image are very soft, I would say around 30% of the image area. Areas of image are too bright, there is a noticeable colour cast and contrast is a little lacking. What makes many of these errors surprising is they can be greatly reduced or even solved using a single mouse click... Auto Levels, in Photoshop. Fixed it up a lot. I then did some further manual levels adjustment, then I did some further contrast adjustment and removed the colour cast, but even the auto-levels did a lot by itself. See Right: Our Lady of Sorrows 080202 feedback.jpg. Apologies if this sounds harsh, but, one mouse click! Capital photographer (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me your edit looks to have too much magenta, I think the more orangey cast of the altar area in the original is probably more accurate to what the eye would observe, this is a building with a huge mess of different lighting sources and temperatures and white balance is always going to be a judgement call, something which auto levels is going to misjudge a lot of the time. Choosing the altar as an area of interest, and specifically the white cloth on the table in the center, I would tend more toward orange than magenta. Mfield (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You mean a magenta cast over the whole image? The original has a strong orange/yellow cast. My colour calibrated display (I finally calibrated it) doesn't show any, but some displays have a magenta cast. Could anyone else please confirm if a cast exists?
  - Yeah, the edit definitely has a magenta cast. Auto levels isn't going to work well when the interior of the building is orange to begin with. The original looks reasonably accurate to me. Thegreenj 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify, what you see here wasn't done with auto levels, rather manuals levels and brigtness and contrast adjustments. My point was I used auto-levels (though this change wasn't retained for the final version here) and it improved it quite a bit. Capital photographer (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually it has a less blown areas than Today's featured picture Mfield (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1, strong oppose observer edit It could be sharper, but I'm willing to overlook what is, to some extent, a depth of field issue a bit. The observer edit, however, looks unnatural, particularly in the painting above the altar. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Observer Edit Full of color and I like how the empty space was removed from the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Observer edit But edge softness is still an issue. Spencer^T♦^C 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Our Lady of Sorrows 080202 feedback.jpg --NauticaShad e s 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShad es 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (Promotion overturned).[reply]