Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Liverpool Cathedral stained glass

Liverpool Cathedral stained glass
One of the stained glass windows in Liverpool Cathedral. It's an extremely colourful window and I hope my photo has done justice to it. I especially like the coloured light on the left hand wall.


 * Self nom and support. - chowells 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose A good photo of a beautiful subject. Could use some work in photoshop to
 * reduce noise in the dark regions (i.e. the chroma noise in the stonework)
 * correct perspective so that the windows are square and vertical
 * possibly adjust levels and crop?

If this were done, I would consider supporting. Also, does it need to be 10mb? Is it really ISO 200? –Joke 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly how to reduce the noise. It's already had quite a lot of perspective correction done, though I like the way it is now -- I get the feeling I'm standing at the bottom of a massive window. If the consensus is that more perspective correction should be done that is possible. It's already been cropped, though I didn't crop it more tightly due to wanting to include the coloured light on the walls on the left. Cropping more tightly is of course possible. Adjusting levels needs more research since I don't know how to do that :) I tried smaller versions in photoshop but I felt that the extra quality was worth it. Also I don't really see what not -- Mediawiki handles smaller versions automatically and those that want the highest quality possible can have it. It was ISO 200. What makes you doubt that? chowells
 * Please see #2. chowells 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like the PC'ed/cropped #2 better, but I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I am surprised it is ISO 200, because the colors in the stonework are so blotchy in the upper right hand corner, but I guess it is quite dark in that region. Maybe it is something that came out in levels. Is there some way to reduce the chrominance noise there? I'm not really familiar with noise reduction tools. –Joke 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Very nice pic. But not currently illusrating any article. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ergh thanks, I thought I'd pressed save, but obviously not. Fixed. chowells 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original although I'd be happier seeing it making a more convincing contribution in another article. It's a pity Stained glass is such a gallery already. Super pic though. I disagree with Joke137. Given the resolution I find the small amount of noise perfectly acceptable.  Don't play with the levels unless you think the pic truly misrepresents the scene. I'm guessing the stonework ought to be as dark as it looks and anyway the shadow detail looks just fine on my (calibrated) monitor. Using levels to lift the shadow falsely will not make the image look better  ~ Veledan • Talk 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. I was implying that the stonework may have been darker in the photo as it came out of the camera, and has been lightened so that it is possible to make out some detail. I agree that it is fine as it is, though. –Joke 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The camera was outputting RAW so it's exactly as the CCD (or is it a CMOS sensor?) saw it -- Rawshooter premium was then used to convert to 16 bit TIFFs (I understand RAW is 12bit so converting to 8bit tiff at that stage would lose some info I think...) with white balance temperature of 6100K and tint -10. The tiffs were then stitched together in PTGui. No other processing apart from converting the resulting 16bit tiff to 8bit in Photoshop CS2 and then saving as a JPEG. Cheers. chowells 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the second version would look better in an article. You need to see this image at something close to full resolution to really appreciate it, but as it is the first version looks poor as a thumbnail because a lot of the image is completely dead space, where it is impossible to make out detail or texture in the stonework. I don't know if this is something to take into consideration for featured pictures. Moreover, I think this image is better than any image currently in the stained glass article, and is as good an example as I've ever seen, so probably it ought to replace one of the more mundane images in the "gallery." –Joke 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * user:Diliff also has a rather beautiful stained glass pic -- Image:St_Vitus_stained_glass.jpg chowells 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Nice, although the Liverpool Cathedral article is already very nicely illustrated ;-) Stained glass can be tricky to get the exposure right and this does a good job when examined in full detail. But the overall composition is a little weak, largely because the stained glass itself is less than stellar, compared to say a Chagall, a Tiffany or even a William Morris and Co.. Also we should really have a better image description, saying at least which window this is (it looks like the West window) and ideally identifying the subject and the artist.  Oh and yes, Liverpool Cathedral is generally very dark and heavy. -- Solipsist 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, indeed it is nicely illustrated. I think you're right, it is at the west end -- I've updated the caption here. It's exactly the opposite the high altar, [[Image:Liverpool Cathedral High Altar.jpg|50px|high altar]]. chowells 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support preferably original; it looks worse when it's small, but it's better in the close-up. It's not quite fair to compare it to Tiffany, etc.; it's a different style.--ragesoss 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral; upon returning to this image after looking at some other FP's, it's underwhelming.--ragesoss 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I just don't find the subject that interesting or beautiful. There are better stained glass out there. :) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very detailed, but not stunnig and too dark for me. It looks horrible a thumb. I wish you better luck next time. Renata 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Diliff. enochlau (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

