Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keble College Chapel, Oxford University

Keble College Chapel, Oxford University

 * Reason:Ticks all the boxes IMO. High resolution, good composition, good EV, interesting architecture.
 * Articles this image appears in:Keble College and Spencer Barrett (not particularly relevent there, however)
 * Creator:User:Diliff

A few comments on the edit please --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC) --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as it contributes significantly to the article and technical quality is high, although I am seeing at least four smudges in the sky that could easily be cloned out. Fletcher (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure how I missed them as I had already looked in the sky for them and cloned a few out. I found another 6 and fixed them. Hopefully that should be the last of them. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support High resolution. Geographic/architectural constraints compel the slightly odd choice of angle (the lighting comes out a bit flat with the camera angle so similar to the sun's angle--but there's not much other way to get this shot within a quadrangle without making less desirable compromises).  Would you consider cropping out the foreground shadows?  Durova Charge! 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the lighting is ever so slightly flat, but as you say, there isn't really an alternative angle that does justice to the location. I happen to like the foreground though - the geometry of the quad and the almost perfect grass. Very Oxford University. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support good picture. —  Aitias  // discussion 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Probably not the most amazing building shot Diliff's taken but definitely still meets the criteria --Fir0002 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not so sure of the EV on this. It has a real cutoff feeling, though I'm guessing the chapel itself is the taller building in the middle and perhaps does not include the abutting buildings at all? Maybe if it's just meant to be illustrating that then it is not cutoff. However I am guessing this because neither the article nor image page seem to explain where the chapel begins and ends. As an illustration of Keble College, Oxford I'd say it's definitely cutoff, and if the above about the chapel is correct, then maybe it should be more tightly cropped to that middle building? --jjron (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that given an elementary understanding of what chapels represent and generally look like, you'd pick the numerous spires/crosses on the top of the central building as being the chapel! The arch on the far left side of the structure is actually the entrance (in practice) to the chapel itself, so it would be wrong to crop that out, and if only the right side was cropped, it would unbalance the composition a bit, so I'm not keen on that - I just think that focusing on the chapel while providing a bit of context/visual breathing space on the sides/in the foreground is okay. I also don't agree that it is too cropped to be a FP for the article. Not all photos (even FPs) have to illustrate the subject completely and absolutely. They can just as easily illustrate one aspect of it (example being one of Fir0002's images illustrating the mating behaviour of an insect), as long as that aspect has a significance to the article. I can't actually remember why I didn't take a panorama of this quad, but I suspect there were distracting elements of some sort that prohibited it. I guess you're right, though, that the article doesn't explain exactly what you are seeing, given no caption. Nothing that can't be resolved easily. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also been wondering about the EV. Since the image only illustrates the chapel, I'm not sure how much EV this has in Keble College. Is there something about the chapel that makes it especially significant? Nothing is mentioned in the article. Even if the architecture of the chapel is representative of the rest of the college, which I'm not sure is entirely true, I feel that gives this picture only marginal EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does state that the school had an early emphasis on theological teaching which probably raises the importance of this building. Not sure where, but I have seen it before. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Every college's chapel is fairly important in an Oxbridge campus, I would say, being both historically and currently one of the primary places of assembly. In any case, as I said above, I don't think an image must represent the entire subject of the article to have EV. It can just as easily illustrate an aspect as long as that aspect has some significance. In this case, I think it does. It isn't as though it is an image of the college rubbish bin, or car park. It is the largest and most visually impressive building in the college, as indeed chapels are in most colleges. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite your initial flippant dismissal of my concerns I think you've actually confirmed some of them. Given my 'elementary understanding' of the way these buildings often end up cobbled together I suspected that lower building at the left may serve as an addition to the chapel proper, and/or as you say an alternative entrance, given which it does appear cutoff. You are right that an image doesn't need to necessarily depict the whole subject to have EV or become an FP, but, IMO, while you obviously have to stop the picture somewhere, this comes off looking a bit awkward. I still feel it would be good if at least the image page gave a bit more information on what we were looking at - users shouldn't really have to be making assumptions/educated guesses/whatever about what they are looking at, especially in an FP. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was more of a flippant disagreement with your concerns. ;-) Honestly though, I would have considered it reasonably obvious that, (a) the chapel is the building with the crosses on the many spires, (b) it was a crop of a quadrangle and (c) generally different buildings are joined together to form a quadrangle. I know none of these are self-evident per-se, but one has to assume a base level of understanding and I think most people would be able to understand the composition when the caption states it is a photo of the chapel, and from the geometry of what you can see. I agree that there is no harm in providing as much info as possible about the image though, and I implied that the caption/image page description could/would be fixed, so I don't really see the problem there. It was more the matter of composition that I took issue with. As for the left side being cut off, I still don't agree. Yes, the entire building that the entrance is part of is cut off, but the portion of that building relevent to the chapel is not (the entrance is essentially a hallway which leads to both the chapel and other parts of the college. To include the entire building on the left would be to include more of it than is necessary to illustrate the chapel. The chapel could be illustrated without including that entrance and would still be complete, as the chapel also has another entrance visible but was not in use at the time and is likely only used for formal occasions, but I think the composition would suffer as the path and steps to the 'utilitarian' entrance would be partially cropped out, making it look pretty messy. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "...and I implied that the caption/image page description could/would be fixed, so I don't really see the problem there...", and yet still it remains as it was...? --jjron (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Christmas got in the way? I haven't had a chance to sit down and think of what exactly it needs and how best to do it, but besides, it isn't strictly 'my job'. Anyone could do it, particularly those who feel most strongly about it ;-). My point was simply that the caption in the article shouldn't be a significant hurdle. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per my comments above. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment oversaturated greens (lawn), and maybe undersaturated blue? Could be solved by going back to RAW, maybe? And I think the red brick is a tad more saturated as well. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the greens are just due to the variety of grass:, , , , . Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The third one looks realistic. If you look at the blue values both in the lawn and sky areas of both pictures, you'll find that your number three does indeed have higher blue values, which makes the green less saturated and the blue more so, resulting in a more realistic appearance overall. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not really following your logic. In my image, I sampled a pixel in the sunlit grass at random and got R93 G120 B31. In #3, I sampled another random pixel of sunlit grass and got R78, G122, B34. Apart from the red channel, I actually see almost no difference. Certainly nothing that would prove it to be oversaturated. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Brief comment: I sample averages. A commonly used color picker size for this purpose is 3x3, which I used. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you post an edit that fixes your concerns so it is easier to make comparisons? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. The edit looks a bit bewildering when you've been looking at the original for so long, but it comes fairly close to reference no. 3. Maybe this version has the "punch" Diliff is looking for? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is almost impossible to know whether an object is over or undersaturated unless it is painfully obvious, but I don't think it is in this case. As Noodle mentioned, the grass is just naturally very green and well tended in Oxford. And sometimes the sky just isn't a deep blue, due to haze in the sky or for numerous other reasons. And I wouldn't say the bricks are particularly saturated. They look fairly normal really. I would say that if anything, this image is slightly lacking in punch and saturation overall, so I'm not sure I can see what you're seeing. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice.  Spencer T♦C 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not too fussed either way about the edit, and I can see what PLW has tried to do with it, but I did think the shadows seem a bit purple-tinted now and the building slightly too bright so my preference is for the original. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I don't particularly support (see above), FWIW I prefer the original. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)