Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kath. Kirche Helminghausen.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 18:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Catholic Church „St. Maria von der Immerwährenden Hilfe“ in Helminghausen
  • OK, don`t understand me wrong. As I wrote allready, it is a solid picture. The fact it is a stitched image is secondary and doesn't make the picture any better, quite the contrary, but thats another thing... This side (FPC) is to review and feature the best pictures on commons and imo this picture is a perfect quality image but NOT the best on commons! Not every nearly sharp picture which is showing something needs to be featured!! @Carschten: To assume me a partial assesment is just ridiculous and damn close to malicious! And this picture is a well balanced picture with a nice composition, better lighting and a more appealing background. IMO!! If an own oppinion is allowed... Sincerely yours mathias K 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best of what? Churches at all? Churches in Germany? Of Helminghausen? … “Not every nearly sharp picture which is showing something needs to be featured!!” I don't find criteria against that except personal opinion. So have you ever asked why not doing that? In which way does it hurt anyone to feature featurable pictures? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 09:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • mhm, yeah, that's right. This annoys me too, but it was not prevent at all. The church hans't any overexposed pieces. The sun shined hard on the clouds to this time in this mountainous landscape. I think that reflections from the water reservoir also provoked the cloud-overexposure. So, as I said, it was inevitable, and meanwhile I'm not thinking that the overexposure is disturbing. Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. correct exposure (check the camera intern histogramm after taking a picture)
2. using a filter (polarizer, graduated ND, or just ND)
3. exposure blending -- mathias K 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • HAHAHA, thats funny! So you say raising the dynamic range of an digital camera by using exposure blending isn't photography? But stitching 4 pictures to one panorama using a computer program is still? Hm what a pitty, than are these pictures ([1] [2] [3] just 3 for example) just good enough for the recycle bin cause theire are all done with exposure blending... Thats sad! --mathias K 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I neither like stiching. But you're mixing statements and actions resp. FPCs and photography: I can of course support stiched and dynamic range raised images because I like them or cannot see whether they are changed. But simple photography (pressing the button in a given situation) is neither of them, imho (I have never said that this file is done by photography, it is, in fact, not). But not only simple photographs can be FPs on Commons: Art in any way, also photo manipulation, can be featured on Commons. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment the quality is high, but I don't like a little bit the aesthetics of the image.. ie. the object is in the middle of the frame.. I would prefer a more creative view.. Ggia (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kath._Kirche_Helminghausen.jpg&oldid=43260332"