Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica

Original - Interior of Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica.Founded in 1874. It has been administered by the Servite fathers for its entire history. Ground was broken for the current church building on June 17, 1890 and the church was dedicated on January 5, 1902.

Edit1 Edit to fix distortions as best as possible.

Observer Edit Nothing much can be done to correct the edge softness, but the solution to the contrast and brightness is literally a click away.

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)
comment it looks as if it has undergone a lot of noise reduction. de Bivort 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Weak oppose It is rather grainy and the lights are all unattractively blown out. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose, would support a slightly darker version. --Janke | Talk 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)
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)

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)

- 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)
    - 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)
Comment actually it has a less blown areas than Today's featured picture Mfield (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Weak support Observer edit But edge softness is still an issue. Spencer^T♦^C 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)