- Reason
- Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging.
- Articles this image appears in
- Washington, D.C., (now added to) Washington National Cathedral
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — Noclip 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not the prettiest cathedral I've seen, but I'm impressed by the tone mapping as I don't see any haloes or obvious abberations. As with any HDR image being compressed for display on the web it looks slightly lacking in contrast though. You know, you can't claim "Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging" when it isn't in either article! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It is an impressive picture and looks quite natural to me. But the main altar seems overexposed and has little detail. - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_Cathedral_Panorama.jpg#File_links says that the image is only on the following pages:
Washington, D.C.,
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Cathedral Sanctuary.
Spikebrennan
17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've added it to the Washington National Cathedral article - it's in need of more inline images in any case, and this is better than any of the existing interior shots. TSP 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- My point was simply to draw attention to the fact that the photo probably ought to be added to other articles as appropriate, which
TSP now did.
Spikebrennan
03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ergo my failure to oppose. Spikebrennan 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there a reason to use HDR on this image? Also, what is giving it the purple look at the top of the image?
gren
グレン
23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly compares favourably to non-HDR images from the article, such as this - not a bad picture, but much of the image is too dark to see. The purples, blues and reds in the upper area of the image will be from the sun shining through the stained glass. TSP 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great tone mapping, almost like as the eye sees it. The purple look is probably due to the stained glass windows at the top.-- antilived T | C | G 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't support an image with such ovbious stiching errors. Shouldn't the image discription identify it as a stich of multiple photographs?
Cacophony
22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those "obvious stitching errors" look like they're unavoidable as they only occur in the hanging wires and not the ceiling (they are swaying). You may also want to consider that Diliff's Library of Congress panorama was featured even with similarly obvious stitching errors. Noclip 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd reconsider if you could you at least identify it in the image discription page as a stich. Criteria #7 has a footnote which states: The image description page should have sufficient context on circumstances of image creation and the specific image subject. Right now the image discription page is blank. Cacophony 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Support – I'm going to forgive the stitching errors as they seem unavoidable. Apart from that technically very secure and wonderfully symmetric.
Centy – –
18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) - Support In my opinion a lovely cathedral, lovely photograph. I think it must be the overall perspective that has won me over. Chris Buttigieg talk 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice pic. The few sticking errors are not distracting can can only be seen upon careful scanning. Encyclopedic and beautiful. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:National Cathedral Panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging.
- Articles this image appears in
- Washington, D.C., (now added to) Washington National Cathedral
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — Noclip 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not the prettiest cathedral I've seen, but I'm impressed by the tone mapping as I don't see any haloes or obvious abberations. As with any HDR image being compressed for display on the web it looks slightly lacking in contrast though. You know, you can't claim "Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging" when it isn't in either article! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It is an impressive picture and looks quite natural to me. But the main altar seems overexposed and has little detail. - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_Cathedral_Panorama.jpg#File_links says that the image is only on the following pages:
Washington, D.C.,
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Cathedral Sanctuary.
Spikebrennan
17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've added it to the Washington National Cathedral article - it's in need of more inline images in any case, and this is better than any of the existing interior shots. TSP 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- My point was simply to draw attention to the fact that the photo probably ought to be added to other articles as appropriate, which
TSP now did.
Spikebrennan
03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ergo my failure to oppose. Spikebrennan 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? --
Phoenix2 (
talk,
review)
20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there a reason to use HDR on this image? Also, what is giving it the purple look at the top of the image?
gren
グレン
23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly compares favourably to non-HDR images from the article, such as this - not a bad picture, but much of the image is too dark to see. The purples, blues and reds in the upper area of the image will be from the sun shining through the stained glass. TSP 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great tone mapping, almost like as the eye sees it. The purple look is probably due to the stained glass windows at the top.-- antilived T | C | G 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't support an image with such ovbious stiching errors. Shouldn't the image discription identify it as a stich of multiple photographs?
Cacophony
22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those "obvious stitching errors" look like they're unavoidable as they only occur in the hanging wires and not the ceiling (they are swaying). You may also want to consider that Diliff's Library of Congress panorama was featured even with similarly obvious stitching errors. Noclip 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd reconsider if you could you at least identify it in the image discription page as a stich. Criteria #7 has a footnote which states: The image description page should have sufficient context on circumstances of image creation and the specific image subject. Right now the image discription page is blank. Cacophony 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Support – I'm going to forgive the stitching errors as they seem unavoidable. Apart from that technically very secure and wonderfully symmetric.
Centy – –
18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion a lovely cathedral, lovely photograph. I think it must be the overall perspective that has won me over. Chris Buttigieg talk 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice pic. The few sticking errors are not distracting can can only be seen upon careful scanning. Encyclopedic and beautiful. Jumping cheese Cont @ct 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:National Cathedral Panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)