Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ossuaire 2

Ossuaire 2

Reason: Interesting image displaying a component of a rather unusual place, the Sedlec Ossuary. Seems to fulfill all the criteria of a featured image.
Articles this image appears in: Sedlec Ossuary
Creator: Martin St-Amant

Support as nominator — –– Lid^(Talk) 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support - stunning image, but the harsh flash shadow is a bit unfortunate. Debivort 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god! the bottom right quadrant is a crow eating a severed human head - made out of actual human heads!!! Debivort 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very stunning image. ♠Tom @s Bat 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, great scene, but some technical problems... gren グレン 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add alternative Any takers?--Here T oHelp 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the original over the alternative due to the level of detail. I'm requesting that the original to be sharpened and cleaned-up, since some of the edges around the smaller bones are a bit blurry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I like the alternative for its wider view.--Here T oHelp 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, so much so that I support it. --Phoenix (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either I like the original for the larger size and more detail on each individual bone (although there are some places where the highlights are almost blown), but the alternative for the lighting and atmosphere. I think I'm going to go read something by Edgar Allen Poe now…--Here T oHelp 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative. Sharper and shows more of the direct environment of the coat of arms (or should I say 'coat of bones'?). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like that one ever so slightly more than the original, but the subject is smaller…--Here T oHelp 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original/weak oppose alt The original's main problem is tonal issues created from the flash. Bouncing the flash or using a tupperware globe could have helped soften the light. Given the size, sharpness isn't really a major issue. The cropping is a little tight. As for the alt, the composition is a little wider and you get more context, but there seems to be a bit of dead weight (no pun intended) at the bottom of the image (the semi-circle bothers me, compositionally). The image isn't that crisp and this shows in the thumbnail (when thumbnails normally cover up sharpness issues). The color and tonal range is better than the original.-Andrew c 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would darkening the colour/tone of the original to closer match the alternative make it ineligable under the featured picture criteria? –– Lid^(Talk) 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if you think that you can improve it so, you are encouraged to have a go at it! J Are you green? 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure I have the skills how, I was inquiring because a lot of these comments, while supporting, tend to say "I like X from the first, but I also like X from the second" Is there a way to combine these into a single image or does anyone around here have that ability? –– Lid^(Talk) 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Andrew c's analysis. The second one is lit with ambient light, so it looks much better tonally. Re-lighting isn't something you can do afterwards, worse luck. Comping is out for the same lighting reasons. In either case, I'm not sure this is being judged as a featured picture so much as a featured subject. It is pretty wild, but photographically, neither is particularly outstanding. I Oppose both versions, as we can surely do better. mikaul^talk 09:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "dead weight" in the alt can be cropped, but the sharpness is not so easy to fix. Unsharpness masking can only do so much.--Here T oHelp 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The subject is very interesting, but the shot itself leaves much to be desired in my opinion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per KFP --Jklamo 09:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KFP--great subject, so-so photo. Calliopejen1 04:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted the alternate has been replaced with a significantly higher res version that it was originally. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very intriguing and unusual subject; however I cannot support because the technical quality of the photograph is under par. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]