Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chester Cathedral at dusk

Chester Cathedral at dusk

 * Reason:I think it may have 'the juice'.
 * Articles this image appears in:Chester Cathedral
 * Creator:Joopercoopers (talk)


 * Support as nominator Joopercoopers (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support A bit fuzzy, more apparent top left where the branches connects with the dark blue sky. Dengero (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, the thing that pops out at me the most is the glare from the lights on the structure itself, which could easily be edited out with a computer program. Second, the branches from the tree block much of the building, and it makes it difficult to see the structure as a whole. Third, the lights on the left corner detract from the picture. Juliancolton Talk 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll have a look at addressing your concerns regarding the lights to the left and toning down the floodlighting - the trees are more problematic - they're so close to the building that really shooting in December is about as good as we can get - short of them mysteriously being cut down in the middle of the night........any suggestions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. I didn't see anything, it must have been the wind ;) Anyway, you might consider cropping just enough to eliminate the tree trunk and some of the major branches. After that is done and the lighting is adjusted, it could be a good image. Juliancolton Talk 00:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, how do you find edit1? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit1 It looks much better, although the flood lighting in the middle is still slightly too bright. Give it one more tone-down, and it should be good. Juliancolton Talk 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lights are a tad too bright, and we also have compression noise in the sky. I suspect you edited this using curves. I wonder if we can recover some colour depth if you upload the original. I suspect, though, that the composition you have chosen is really HDR terrain, so you may not get the result we'd like without reshooting the scene with several different exposures. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. If you use curves to stretch out the highlights, you'd be compressing the colour depth in the sky, and eliminating the artefacts there. However, I don't think anything will fix the blown out highlight in the lower centre of the image. Your time will be better spent just reshooting with a tripod if you can. If you don't have a tripod, this may help you. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Composition is awful as most of the subject is covered in tree branches. The main subject is far too dark. The overall quality is rather bad: the image is noisy, unsharp, and and muddy with artifacts. The angle is awful, it is fairly distorted... The list goes on. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely not Edit 2, aside from the other issues, there is some sort of ghost image in the bottom right corner, and the whole structure seems distorted. vlad§inger  tlk  02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * to be perfectly honest, the bottom two are so many light years better than the first two (image quality wise), a small ghost and a some distortion pale in comparison. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just on the case....See edit 3 - I can sort the cropping and ghosting out if the consensus is that's the way to go. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And now edit 4 with cropping and ghosting sorted. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 4 (the one whose image name ends in "edit 3.jpg"). Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 4 Juliancolton (Talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose all verticals verticals verticals Mfield (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I could - but I'm not convinced making such an unnatural alteration will benefit the image or it's encyclopedic value - part of the perspective effect, confers height and depth to an image - why do away with that? If we get loads of opposes on that basis I'll do it, but for now I'd rather wait. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)