Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre Dame

NotreDame

 * Reason:Great picture of the Cathedral. It is in my opinion the best picture we got of Notre Dame.
 * Proposed caption:Notre Dame de Paris, known simply as Notre Dame in English, is a Gothic cathedral on the eastern half of the Île de la Cité in Paris, France, with its main entrance to the west. It is still used as a Roman Catholic cathedral and is the seat of the Archbishop of Paris. Notre Dame de Paris is widely considered one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture. It was restored and saved from destruction by Viollet-le-Duc, one of France's most famous architects. Notre Dame translates as "Our Lady" from French.
 * Articles this image appears in:Notre Dame de Paris
 * Creator:User:Sanchezn


 * Support as nominator Bewareofdog (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1, perfect. Sharp, highly encylopaedic, well stitched. --Aqwis (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Great pic, but the ghost in the bottom-left corner is distracting. There's also some kind of bright bluish thing there, too; do you know what that is?--HereToHelp 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support I didn't notice that blue thing until H said something, and now it's all I can look at. The image is great, but that spot's got to go. SingCal (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. "I ain't scared of no ghosts..." *) but that distracting blue/black "aura" needs to be removed. What on earth is it? --Janke | Talk 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC) *) Said Goofy in "Lonesome Ghosts"...
 * Comment It seems to be the screen of a camera in one of the three pictures used for the HDR picture. Sanchezn (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem corrected... Sanchezn (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. Could do with a bit of colour correction I think. I know its a very sodium-light-tinted scene, but its a still a bit warm. The areas of shadow seem a bit peculiar and posterised. Also, its significantly tilted, particularly at the top where the perspective is exaggerated. Could relatively easily be corrected, so I can't see why not. Would support it with the correction of the tilt at the least. The other issues are more minor and optional. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The building is not 100% straight, so it should not be straightened in the image for maxiumum encylopaedic value. Please read the successful nomination on Commons, where many issues were brought up. --Aqwis (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support any Very beautiful image indeed!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the horizontals line up. This is especially noticeable at the top where the right tower is shorter than the left by 28 pixels, and is nearly 2 degrees off horizontal. I really doubt it's engineering fault since this is quite a large discrepancy, and that it gets worse as you go up, which correlates well with perspective errors. --antilivedT 09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We were very carefull to check that this picture doesn't have perspective problem. The rightmost tower is actually much lower than the left one, and does show this leaning to the right. Please have a look a discussion on this picture's commons' nomination on this issue. -- Blieusong (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  Conditonal support edit 1 It really is a very good photograph, the sort of detail you'd see on an old plate negative of the place. Unfortunately, the colour balance looks Victorian too. Most tellingly, there are no blacks where there should be: silhouetted foreground figures should be black, not red-brown. The same applies to detail in the hedgerows and buildings to the sides, I'd rather see no detail at all than colour-aliased "false" detail. HDR mapping problem is my guess, so it may be fixable. I'll try to upload a corrected version myself if I get time later on.  FWIW I've heard of the leaning towers of Notre Dam before, so no objections there.  Edit 1 now uploaded --mikaultalk 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose When looked at with full resolution the detail is impressive, but overall the image is flat and uninteresting with an unattractive Brown Windsor soup background. The blurred people are also unappealing, even on the thumbnail.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - colors not appealing (why is the sky brown?). Heavy jpeg artifacts at full resolution. Would look better without the ghosts. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Light pollution would be the reason. See Skyglow. MER-C 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Stitching error (as per crop). Seems like it's a product of the shadow from the neighbouring tower. I dislike the strong sharpening - it should be toned down a bit as it's giving everything a halo hence despite the nice scene weak support. Do you think you could upload a less sharpened version? Looking at the original it's pretty clear that I'm not just imagining that pretty heavey sharpening has been applied. --Fir0002 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 pending photographer's agreement that the colors still look realistic after the edit. The only jpeg artifact I see is around the antenna at the top of the tower; where are the artifacts you are talking about, Kaldari?  Enuja  (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to Neutral because of lack of agreement about color balance.  Enuja  (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1 I'd still like to see the ghosts removed.--HereToHelp 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 though I too would like the ghosts to fly away. H92110 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original and Oppose Edit 1. I find the Original very good, and I don't believe the Edit's colours are true to what we saw (I was there with author when he took the picture). Some fine details of the edit look weird on my monitor as well (like blueish edges or something) and this is noticeable on the lower part of the façade. Also, should we take into account negatives votes whom reason is the leaning of the right tower when we have (kind of) proven it is how the building actually does look like ? Blieusong (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Good pics, but get rid of the ghosts if at all possible.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there is no stitching error... I put a crop of the original image (before stitch) Sanchezn 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the ghosts before I promote this? Thanks. MER-C 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Oppose Edit 1. The color change is for the worse, in my opinion.  The original is quite a nice picture.  -Werideatdusk33 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What ghosts? ;o) Apart from the extreme lhs, it's not a simple clone job. The bottom of one of the doors is totally obscured and, like much of the detail behind many of the FG figures, is basically irretrievable, at least without alternative frames to clone from. For me, this is a minor issue anyway, compared to the awful tone and colour balance, especially in the shadows. I hear the comments of the nominator and accept that the general shift in colour balance I uploaded isn't based on anything objective, but neutral, dense blacks is something any subject in this lighting should definitely have. I still have the PSD file of the edit & could clone out the figure on the left, retaining much of the original's colour balance but beefing up the shadows, if that's likely to help things along. --mikaultalk 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Original - beautifully detailed image, which makes me want to read more about the cathedral. Some of the beautiful detail is lost in the edit - look, for example, at the iron tracery on the doors. TSP (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original -- Laitche (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)