Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jerónimos Monastery

Jerónimos Monastery

 * Reason:Quality+EV
 * Articles this image appears in:Jerónimos Monastery
 * Creator:Massimo Catarinella


 * Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No doubt this is a difficult building to photograph based on the shape and size. This might well be the best view of it, but it's just not quite dynamic enough for me. As I've said many times before in other nominations, not all subjects are realistically capable of giving you an FP quality photo, and this is probably one of them. It might stand out better at night if it was brighter lit than the surroundings though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That dynamism might improve with an sRGB version... hate to carp on about it but it does make a huge difference. This is a nice shot, if what I see in Photoshop is right; maybe what's "losing" it among its surroundings is the foreshortening which seems quite pronounced here. Having said that, focal length and vantage point look ideal for this particular building. --mikaultalk 08:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it wasn't sRGB. Massimo, why are you not saving in sRGB? Adobe RGB is no use on the web, and of limited use anywhere except prints, and even then doubtful except with pro labs... The lack of dynamism is compositional though IMO. I think the lack of a visible horizon makes it feel a bit cramped. Clearly, it illustrates the monastery itself, but showing a bit more of the surroundings would be nice. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never really thought about it, till Mikaul brought it up. I'll try to reupload most of my pictures in sRGB. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never thought about it? All of the colours of your images will have been really messed up as a result. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In browsers that cannot view Adobe RGB properly, that is. Firefox 3.x can, which is why I didn't notice the problem, but most viewers use IE obviously... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also didn't notice it, since I use either Firefox or Safari. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment sRGB version uploaded. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Diliff. I've mulled it over and can't escape the fact that the subject just isn't distinct among its surroundings. Tremendous detail, high resolution and clear EV sometimes aren't enough. There's also an x factor, a combination of aesthetic and emotional responses that an image has to elicit for FP and this just doesn't do it. Sorry Massimo :-( --mikaultalk 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I don't mind people opposing, as long as they have a good reason to do so ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. 'Doesn't stand out enough' isn't a very compelling objection for me. It illustrates the subject in a highly encyclopedic fashion and does it to a very high technical standard. A ground level shot won't offer the same EV. Short of cropping out the background, I'm not sure how this is an actionable objection. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)