Reason

A good quality image and very beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

Creator

JeremyA

• Support as nominator Beware ofdog 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. Nautica Shad 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. Nautica Shad 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 -- Nautica Shad e s 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Not promoted -- Nautica Shad es 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (Promotion overturned). reply