Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg

File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 20:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info The main hall of the Victorian wing in Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin, Ireland. The year 2016 is the centenary of the Easter Rising, and many Irish revolutionaries and leaders were imprisoned and executed in this prison by the British. Photo created/uploaded/nominated by me. -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Not something you see here every day... Light and airy pic of historically important building with a very dark past. I'll even forgive the glare up in the glass ceiling. cart-Talk 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I find this photo haunting and will support, but I would love it if there's a way to decrease the glare in the bright parts without otherwise damaging the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 02:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good job keeping the potentially blown highlight down. Ironic how the interior of a former prison looks so airy, its design almost like a late 20th-century shopping mall. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Leaning a bit to the left, the two "bridges" are not horizontal.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, I've made an adjustment, using the lower bridge as a guide as well as some of the longer vertical lines. -- Colin (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Sinne Fianna Fáil, A tá fé gheall ag Éirinn.--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose good composition but disturbing overexposed areas Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's that word, "overexposed" again. It means literally to expose film (or a digital sensor) for too long, such that detail is lost and highlights blown. In fact, this image was "exposed for the highlights" and the source raw file has no areas blown and is overall darker than you see here. By exposing for the highlights, the rest of the scene ends up under-exposed but that's no problem for my Sony sensor and the whole scene is actually raised 1 stop in post, combined with modest adjustments to reduce highlights and lift shadows. While some people like to whack the "Highlights" slider down to -100, I really dislike seeing paper-grey as the colour through a skylight. This is direct sunlight through the roof light, harshly lighting up the left side of the hall. That's how it was when I saw it with my eyes and I've attempted to render that for you. You might feel a better image would have been taken on a dull overcast day (and I would disagree -- it would be dull) but that's quite a different argument from claiming I made a technical error when exposing this scene in my camera. We are seeing a hall lit not by windows on the walls as most buildings are, nor by artificial light, but by a huge skylight, which is unusual and interesting. -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The bright areas are for me far too much bright in the final result which is nominated here, that they were overexposed or not when taking the photo. If it is not an "overexposition", then it is for me a fault in the post-edition, at least a fault for my tastes. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but please use the correct description. Remember that we all learn from reviews, some are experienced and some just starting out, and so using an incorrect term can confuse everyone, especially beginners. -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The term "overexposition" is not entirely false, as a less exposed image would have been more in my taste, that is a fact...therefore for me it is indeed overexposed unless you brightened willingly the bright areas durind the editing process, a thing that I don't understand. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have brightened the raw image, by one stop, and the subsequent highlight reduction I made did not completely compensate for that increase, so yes, the bright areas are brighter than the raw file. The resulting image isn't brighter than it was in reality, because I had to under-expose to retain highlights. The highlights are not blown; they are just bright. The word "overexposed" refers solely to a technical error made during capture onto film or digital sensor. When one talks of highlights (or channels) "blown" that is when the digital value of the image hits the maximum, which is for a JPG is 255 on any colour channel. These are technical issues. If you feel the areas lit by sunlight (or that are sunlight) are too bright, then that is a matter of "taste", not a technical flaw. I think it very important on our reviews that we separate matters of taste from problems arising from technical error. I'm not trying to change your vote, just to point out that the bright sunlight here is bright in the image for a very deliberate reason. You say you don't understand why I make the bright areas bright? Because they were bright. Harder to understand is why one would try to make bright sunlight dim. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support − Meiræ 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 22:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors