Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HoryujiYumedono0363.jpg

Hall of Dreams

 * Reason:Beautiful picture of a National Treasure of Japan. Note: Creator is recently deceased so will not be able to respond to questions or requests.
 * Articles this image appears in:Hōryū-ji, List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)
 * Creator:Fg2

--jjron (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Slightly low on wow, and I think it might've been improved with a more symmetrical angle, but detail is pretty good. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original or edit 4 Exposure is exactly spot-on. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Edit1 The color balance seemed very green on the original and to disagree with PLW it feels overexposed, I added Edit 1 which corrects the color balance and makes a curve adjustment. Also there was some pretty heavy chromatic abberation noticable on the roof on the left, this edit attempts to address that as well. Mfield (Oi!) 04:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree regarding original. I think edit is now too red/purple now. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I should have checked on another machine, I keep forgetting that Pantone are sending me a new calibrator because this one is off. I have dialed the correction back some and uploaded over Edit 1. Mfield (Oi!) 06:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how taking down the highlights is disagreeing with the original exposure. That detail in the roof that you just about managed to preserve, wouldn't even have been there at a lower exposure. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Few stranger things have happened, but I agree with you... The foreground is ever so slightly overexposed IMO, but it seems like a necessary compromise as detail in the shadows is more important to the scene. One solution is to lower contrast, perhaps... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "just about managed to preserve" - you do know that people are allowed to disgree with your opinion and it doesn't mean that you then need to try and fit in a snarky comment. Saying I disagree with your assessment is not some personal affront, we are discussing an image. The scene as a whole looks overexposed here, if you don't think so then it may be a Mac/PC monitor gamma difference but i rather suspect it feels overexposed because it has been shot at a bad time of day, in too strong sunlight. In order for the detail to be retained in the strong shadows, the large areas of fully lit wall and ground have come out overexposed. Mfield (Oi!) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Noodle snacks; a bit too heavy on the magenta. Otherwise beautiful.  Durova  322 07:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had another play with it and reuploaded. Mfield (Oi!) 07:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Balance looks much better (better than mine). Think the shadow/highlight is a good idea?  Durova  322 07:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 looks too blue to me, edit 4 seems to have some unnatural lighting changes (some of the shadows have disappeared). I like edit 1, but it's so dark. If edit 1 were lightened up a little, I think it would be perfect. Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been no value changes at all (if that's what you mean by "lighting"). The original image has simply been set as the saturation channel over the top of edit 2. Absolutely no other changes, but please do go and try it for yourself if you have any doubts. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are definitely lighting changes in Edit 4. The sky is much darker than the original (~10%), and the area under the roof is lighter (~2%). Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a stab at this and uploaded edit 2. Seemed like a good candidate for the shadow/highlight tool, which brings out more detail in the eaves and gives the masonry bench a more natural appearance.  Minor tweaks to color balance.  Durova  322 07:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Original and edit 1 now look green. Edit 2 looks neutral to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to talk for a moment about saturation. I noticed that edit 1 is oversaturated relative to the original, something I find unnecessary when editing images (see version with saturation restored). Since the first upload of the original is even less saturated, I tried to find some other sources that give a clue to how intensely colored this wood really is. It turns out that the color really is quite intense . All I've done in edit 4 (as on a previous occasion) is to use an existing edit and bring back the original saturation. In my subjective opinion, an added benefit in this case is that the central subject pops out more.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for either Edit 2 or Edit 4 (slight preference to 2). Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for either Edit 2 or Edit 4 (slight preference to 2). -- T orsodo g Talk 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit 1 for my reasons above. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4  upstate NYer  04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)