Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapelle der Versöhnung.jpg

File:Kapelle der Versöhnung.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 18:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kapelle der Versöhnung.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapelle der Versöhnung.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info The Chapel of Reconciliation on the grounds of the Berlin Wall Memorial on Bernauer Strasse in Berlin. The chapel was designed by the architects Peter Sassenroth and Rudolf Reitermann and inaugurated on 9 November 2000. Why do I think this is more than just QI? Maybe it doesn’t have the WOW of a sunset mountain panorama, but I still think this could be FP. Taking this photo was significantly more difficult than it might seem. The chapel has a very unfavorable location. It is oriented to the north and that’s why there’s only a very short time window each day in which some morning sunbeams touch the chapel. I went there a hundred times to get a good light situation. Even when the light is good the chapel is not easy to photograph because the dynamic range is very large. It is hardly possible to get both the wooden poles and the interior well exposed. Therefore I used HDR in this case. Additionally it is quite difficult to get a picture of the chapel without people in front of it. The memorial site is very busy and normally dozens of school classes are running through the picture. The only thing I’m not sure about is the perspective. I'm not sure whether this is better? I’m looking forward to your opinions. All by me -- Code (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Code (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Unusual chapel. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I appreciate your effort taking this photo (north facades are really bad as I know myself) and I also appreciate the detailed background information. The transparent architecture of the building is impressive, the photographic quality very high. For me there is one shortcoming: The distracting element at the left foreground destroying the inner silence of the photo. From this stance the other photo is better (but take a careful look, you've forgotten to crop a tiny element at the top left) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Tuxyso: Thank you very much for your detailed review which helped me a lot for my photographic formation. Do you think I should nominate the other picture instead or as an alternative? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest it as alternative. Both photos are too similiar. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I nominated it as an alternative. I will follow your suggestion and crop the tiny object on the left corner this evening when I'm back at my computer with Photoshop installed. --Code (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Tuxyso: I cropped the tiny element out now (in the alternative). Thanks again for your hint. --Code (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Extraordinary building indeed, but the capture of it is completely ordinary. There is nothing stunning in it which would make this picture different from the others. I think everyone could take such picture being there. That's why I think it would fit as QP much more. Pictures like this or this aren't worse in any way. Both of them are QP. -- Pofka (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think I explained why the capture is anything but ordinary. Which different composition would you recommend? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that FP must have some kind of phenomena in it, which would cause WOW feeling and would be difficult to capture for others. Detailed and high resolution ordinary picture of a building doesn't have this, at least for me. Probably the main problem is the picture's subject/location as it doesn't seem to be worth more than QP: no mountains, no nature, no outstanding/luxurious/decorated architecture, etc. It is just a simple wooden chapel which at first might look exotic, but actually it isn't so. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Original --LivioAndronico talk 08:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral The subject is interesting but the composition is sort of ordinary and front face (I think the right side is front face) is not illuminated in shadow. --Laitche (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Laitche. As I said - unfortunately the front is always in shadow. I don't know how one could make a better picture of the chapel - maybe with a big external flash or something. Do you have an idea? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have any idea... I only can say, It can't be helped.　If I were you, would give up this subject... --Laitche (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Something strange and unnatural in the sky at left. "Bandings" looks like a manual attempt to try to correct an overexposition...--Jebulon (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, I have looked at this closely with Photoshop, altering the gamma which can often emphasise any banding, and I think these are just wispy clouds. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Code: , who is right ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Clouds. --Code (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid the exterior of this building isn't doing anything for me. Makes me think of these, sorry. However, this photo suggests there are better photographic opportunities inside. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Colin: Are you telling me the chapel looks like a toilet? Is this some kind of insult or what? --Code (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: : Please take a careful look on the chapel. IMHO the transparent architecture is really remarkable. It is not friendly to link a picture of a toilet for comparison. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Support --Code (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very good, the "hair light" at the top right of the building is the dot on the i :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Also great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as above, the sky at left is disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per my comment above. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)