Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Old Saint Paul's

Old Saint Paul's


This is a beautiful HDR image taken by User:Deanpemberton. Used on Old Saint Paul's and High dynamic range imaging.


 * Nominate and support. - Redquark 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far too small. Somewhat hazy and blurry, even for an image in a church. --Pharaoh Hound 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose of the Original. I agree with Veledan, the edit is sharpened too much. I've given some more thought to its size, much smaller than I would like, however I suppose it is technically big enough. Also, I forgot how difficult it is to get a not hazy image in a church. Even with all my reconsiderations I still do not think that it is FP material, I find the image rather boring. --Pharaoh Hound 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I do not agree with Redquark's assesment. The image is of reasonable size and clarity.  Not to mention it is also beautiful.  This is far more than a church -- it is grander than any I've seen.  it resembles a small cathedral with wood subsituting for stone.  Definetly worthy.  Support. -- Jason Palpatine 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)  speak your mind
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support Edit. Nice use of exposure bracketing. What software? Uploaded a sharper edit. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit. Boy these shots are hard to get. This makes we want to go and see the place. Edited version is far sharper and better, have to go with that, would probably oppose original for haziness. I notice that Deanpemberton who took this pic created the page it is on - must say the page itself needs a fair bit of improvement, wonder if he can fix it up. --jjron 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support original; weak because of the small size, so I think we should ask the photographer whether he will upload a larger one. The edit looks good at first glance but I think it's a bit too sharpened - it has introduced jagged edges to the roof beams and the top of the red flag, at least on my monitor. ~ Veledan • Talk 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Request - can someone provide some more background on this image? I understand that it demonstrates high dynamic range techniques, of which I only have the fuzziest understanding. As a church, well, ok I live in Europe, but it's not that exciting. The point of view is to my taste fairly average, with a lot of the frame taken up by pews. Is that image primarily being suggested to demonstrate HDR? Or because it's a nice photo of a church? If the former, would it be possible to make the original photos available, and to explain whether these shots are particularly difficult to make? If the latter, I think we're going to need a higher resolution photo - and maybe some touching up, as the image seems very "soft", like nothing is quite in focus. Thanks. Stevage 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I nommed it primarily as a picture of a church. If we're more interested in HDR as such, the two top pictures on High dynamic range imaging would probably be more appropriate.  I chose the bottom one because it provides a better view of the whole structure. Redquark 13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Good, but is it me or is the image slightly leaning to the left a bit?  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was composed from photos? It looks like CGI to me, almost painted. Fir0002's edit is sharpened far too much.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support with slight preference for edit, although the original has a nice painting-quality to it. --  BRIAN  0918 22:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral It just doesn't do it for me, even if I can objectively appreciate its strengths. Something about the combined exposures leaves the whole thing a bit bland - there are no dark spots anywhere. I feel like I'm in a church lit by fluourescent lights all over the place. Strong preference for the edit. Wouldn't mind seeing the original exposures if they're available. Stevage 12:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Church is actually incredibly dark? And we're talking about promoting a brightly lit photo of it as being "encyclopaedic". Seems to contradict point number 6 - it's simply not "accurate". Is this the downside of HDR? The image would be more accurate with high contrast, dark points and bright points. Stevage 07:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. The church is incredibly dark both times I've been into it (wedding and a funeral).  But wow that is a good photo of it. --Midnighttonight 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Picture is too small and it doesn't look like reality. Too much photoshopped. Heilme 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not an HDR image, it's a LDR mapping from a HDR image. There is no info on the technique, was the contrast flattened via some form of automated tone mapping or was it just manually blended with masking? I'd like to see a linear full HDR image, and then we could use it to demonstrate multiple methods of tone mapping. If this was done using manual masking I'd be willing to take the orignals and produce a true HDR image via registered comparimetric blending which could then be compressed to LDR for demonstration of tonemapping techniques. --Gmaxwell 13:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds very interesting! Stevage 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support Regardless of technicalities, I love the warm wood, also I'm a tad parochial.Alastairgbrown 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it illustrates either the church or HDR well enough to be FPC. Resolution is a little low, too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. Higher resolution would be nice though. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) &bull; 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Biased support. But I do really think this is a great picture and I would have supported it anyway :) Swollib 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a particularly good example of HDR, especially given the blooming seen in the window area at the right side.  It's an attractive interior architecture, but I believe a better version of the image could be made with another try. -- moondigger 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tough to draw a consensus but I make this a pass at 10.5/4, giving half weight to weak votes and counting Pharoah's vote only once ~ Veledan • Talk 10:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)