Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hagia Sophia (2)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2013 at 22:01:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice picture with high EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hagia Sophia
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- ArildV
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I know from this angle it can't really be helped, but the trees obscuring the bottom part of the front it not good... From the line of the trees I would like to guess that a front on picture could be taken thus removing this issue... gazhiley 13:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the arguably finest and most famous example of Byzantine architecture, I would have expected a better picture. dllu (t,c) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for nomination.
- Just a comment about the trees. I dont think that the trees can be avoided. The picture was taken from a rooftop, the highest point that you can shoot from. To the right is an archaeological park, which is closed to the public (and there is no high position behind the park, and a picture taken from the closed park would be from a much lower position). On all other sides of the building surrounded by trees. You cant even get a ariel view of Hagia Sophia without tree--ArildV (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support It would certainly be nice if the trees weren't there, but short of chopping them down there is nothing that can be done about that. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I accept this is the best that can be done, so the EV outweighs the other issues. We can D&R if better turns out to be possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Good clarity and high EV BNK (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Question Am I wrong in thinking it's underexposed? It just seems to be kind of dark.
- Exposure 2012 -0.05
- Contrast 2012 +27
- Highlights 2012 -22
- Shadows 2012 +53
- Why were the highlights brought down so much? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Ooh, I didn't mean to upload over the existing version; you have four supports for the darker version. Maybe the lighter version should be uploaded separately and offered as an alt. As for the brighter version, I'm a little bit on the fence, leaning toward support—it may be oversharpened just a skosh, and this is me being picky, but the building might now be just a tad overexposed, but it could be a bright building; I've never seen it. If you think the brighter version best resembles the building in real life, just say so; I'll give it my support. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support the original, darker version. Weak support for this brighter version. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would almost prefer something in between. So, the darker version really doesn't seem to be underexposed to anyone (even though it was done in post)? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit underexposed, but that brings out detail in a very light-coloured building. Either version's fine, IMO, though: neither has a strictly natural sky colour, but anything that did have a natural sky colour would wash out the building. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I am new to FP here. Should I upload a new version between per Keraunoscopia, or restore the orginal version?--ArildV (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit underexposed, but that brings out detail in a very light-coloured building. Either version's fine, IMO, though: neither has a strictly natural sky colour, but anything that did have a natural sky colour would wash out the building. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would almost prefer something in between. So, the darker version really doesn't seem to be underexposed to anyone (even though it was done in post)? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support the original, darker version. Weak support for this brighter version. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Ooh, I didn't mean to upload over the existing version; you have four supports for the darker version. Maybe the lighter version should be uploaded separately and offered as an alt. As for the brighter version, I'm a little bit on the fence, leaning toward support—it may be oversharpened just a skosh, and this is me being picky, but the building might now be just a tad overexposed, but it could be a bright building; I've never seen it. If you think the brighter version best resembles the building in real life, just say so; I'll give it my support. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Good Pic and Quality Florence (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support it looks better in the darker version -- the details in the minarets are more easily seen (but probably the best would be somewhere between the bright and dark version). It's a pity that over hundreds of years the red paint has been bleached to a pale pink. The archaeological park is rather an eyesore... ideally, in my opinion, the photo should be an aerial photo from the left like in the aforementioned aerial view. Then again, the archaeological park offers encyclopedic value about the building's surroundings. It does seem that this is the best picture we have, and it would be extremely difficult to get a better one. dllu (t,c) 08:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support darker version. I think I'm convinced. The building's what's important, not the sky, not the foreground, etc. And the building really is bright. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hagia Sophia Mars 2013.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)