Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/St Mary's, Bairnsdale

St Mary's, Bairnsdale

A good shot of the interior of the Roman Catholic Church showing the intricate mural work done by out of work Italian artist Francesco Floreani, during the Great Depression

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I like this picture the sensation that the walls are going to fall down is too strong. I will support it after a good edit to make vertical lines parallel. Alvesgaspar 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is an inescapable side effect of using a 17mm lens - but it's not as bad as the distortion on this FP: Image:Bodie ghost town.jpg. I don't think there can be too much done to it. --Fir0002 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try selecting the entire frame and performing transform -> distort. Then bend the top left and top right sides outwards so that the 'verticals' are actually vertical. It probably won't fix it completely, but it would certainly help. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goes to show the compassion of the church. In a time when thousands of people were in desperate need of food and housing, they decided to build an elaborate cathedral and employ an Italian artist to decorate it. It looks tacky, the Jesus and Mary in the background look plastic. Carpet also takes away from the gradeur. --liquidGhoul 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no need for potentially offensive comments which are not related to our task here. Also, please comment on how the image illustrates the subject in a pleasing way, rather that criticising the decor.• Le on

I am not voting here because I probably have a bias against churches and don't have the skills to evaluate architectural photos. As for "criticising the decor", it is perfectly valid in this context. The criteria states: "Be pleasing to the eye", and I don't find tacky statues and carpet in a cathedral that pleasing. Sorry about having the comments out of place, but I am never going to censor what I say because it is "potentiall offensive". What I usually have to say isn't offensive, but if I wish to express something, I will. --liquidGhoul 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it really that red? It seems a little unreal! InvictaHOG 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a unique church! I agree with Alvesgaspar with the respect to the walls. Also, I reckon a more symmetrical crop would be better. • Le on 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this be better as an HDR image? --DonES 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As mentioned already, could do with some geometric distortion correction. As far as the photo itself goes apart from that, it is reasonably good, although I'm not really convinced it is a significant enough subject. For that matter, and perhaps it would be best brought to the talk page, do we have a policy about the significance of the subject when deciding on an image becoming FP? Should it be a consideration when deciding? Subconsciously, I've always weighted more support on important/significant subjects and, conversely, been less likely to support a less compelling subject, even if the FPC images are roughly equivalent from a quality/compositional POV. Thoughts? Is this overly elitist? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I personally feel that perhaps it should be the reverse since it would demonstrate why Wikipedia is so unique - Wikipedia can have articles on places like Bairnsdale and recognise the significant archeticutre there. Something like Britannica would have that so that in a way makes it even more special. And as long as it fulfills the criteria and is a good picture I don't see why it shouldn't be a candidate for FP. Anyway thanks for your thoughts --Fir0002 11:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there's a definite tilt to the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you elaborate on how this image was taken and postprocessed. It has a peculiar look to it. The reds look fleshy and partly oversaturated and there is a ambient turquoise shine to it. How comes? --Dschwen 15:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- HDR blending. Perhaps this different blend is more to your liking: Image:St marys - bairnsdale.jpg? --Fir0002 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exposure blending (check this)? It is interesting to compare both blends next to each other. However my comment holds for both of them. Exposure blending with a luminance mask has the inherent problem of oversaturating colors. Have you tried blending the channels seperately? --Dschwen 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - HDR Blending - I'm well aware or the difference, I actually use Photomatix --Fir0002 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - What difference? HDR blending makes absolutely no sense. You either directly blend images with different exposures. Or you create an HDR image from an exposure series and use tone mapping to create a displayable image, as the HDR image cannot be displayed on conventional monitors. So it is either Exposure blending or Tone mapping. --Dschwen 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]