Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount St Sepulchre Franciscan Monastery

Mount St. Sepulchre Franciscan Monastery

 * Reason:Encyclopedic, clear, photograph
 * Articles this image appears in:Mount St. Sepulchre Franciscan Monastery
 * Creator:User:MamaGeek


 * Support as nominator &mdash; MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has some weird perspective issues, with the verticals tilted in all different directions, as opposed to converging to one point (ideally somewhere in infinity ;-) ). There also is a slight abundance of forground (at the cost of lacking headroom above the cross), too much for my taste. --Dschwen 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhmm, and there are huge stitching faults anyways. Hence: Oppose. --Dschwen 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yeah, agree with Dschwen here. The view isn't ideal (better to get in front of those pots) and there are some major stitching problems that are probably resolvable with a good re-stitch. If you'd like, I can have a go with the originals to improve the stitching. Leave me a note if interested. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a re-stitch would fix the strong chromatic aberration of the left wall edge, and the unsharpness... Oppose because of all the tech faults. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's a large piece of monastery floating in the sky, apparently attached to the tree just off-centre. We should have a banner at the top of this page saying "Do not nominate anything stitched using Photoshop's Photomerge function. It is not fit for purpose and will always introduce some sort of weird artifact". --YFB ¿  19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above; floating objects in the sky! -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not sharp enough to make up for ghosting problems. Image:Colosseum in Rome, Italy - April 2007.jpg had some similar problems but, they look more natural than the floating heads and it's also very sharp. gren グレン 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do object to you tarring the Colosseum image with the same brush. ;-) What ghosting problems do you see in that one? As far as I can see there are no stitching faults. Oh, unless you're referring to people moving during the exposure and creating a blur? Well, true, but there are very different reasons for that. It wouldn't happen in a daytime shot. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar as in parts of people floating around. The lady in the foreground has 6 legs :O But, the reasons were legitimate because night shots need long exposures and I suppose you couldn't just kick the people out of the area and the airplane out of the sky.  Which is why I supported it.  But, just to show you how night shots are done, look at my stunning work :( gren グレン 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how you accentuated the parked car with a fill flash and captured the outdoorish atmosphere with the raindrops on your lens ;-) --Dschwen 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sure those decapitated people would agree. Maddiekate 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The entire right side is severely discoloured and frightening anomalies are rampant. A good spot and subject, but technically a disaster.Theonlyedge 03:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very sharp and high res pic. But the horrible stitching ruined it. Sorry.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Slightly out of focus, and there are a few objects that came out of no where, like the one in the sky. Great for encyclopedic content, however I would say it's good enough for a FP SquareShot97 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, and I apologize
I'm not sure if a re-stitch would save this photomerge. I unfortunately did not have a tripod on hand, and I also unfortunately used my camera on aperture priority, so that the photo on the far right has a different exposure than the others. I just wasn't thinking when I took it, I guess. I should have known it wouldn't have a chance of passing. I'll consider it a good lesson learned. I'm sorry to have wasted all of the reviewer's time in looking at it and posting your objections. Thanks for doing that! MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC) MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks for nominating it, anyway. However, you'd be surprised what stitching software can do as it can compensate for different exposures somewhat. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on yourself. I enjoy giving constructive criticism. Better luck next time. =)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we didn't have time to waste we probably shouldn't put FPC on our watchlists... --Dschwen 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Use "autostitch". Google it. It does a brilliant job, costs nothing, and requires no manual input. Stevage 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)