Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chester Cathedral at dusk

Chester Cathedral at dusk

Reason: I think it may have 'the juice'.
Articles this image appears in: Chester Cathedral
Creator: Joopercoopers (talk)

Support as nominator Joopercoopers (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bit fuzzy, more apparent top left where the branches connects with the dark blue sky. Dengero (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, the thing that pops out at me the most is the glare from the lights on the structure itself, which could easily be edited out with a computer program. Second, the branches from the tree block much of the building, and it makes it difficult to see the structure as a whole. Third, the lights on the left corner detract from the picture. Juliancolton Talk 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll have a look at addressing your concerns regarding the lights to the left and toning down the floodlighting - the trees are more problematic - they're so close to the building that really shooting in December is about as good as we can get - short of them mysteriously being cut down in the middle of the night........any suggestions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lol. I didn't see anything, it must have been the wind ;) Anyway, you might consider cropping just enough to eliminate the tree trunk and some of the major branches. After that is done and the lighting is adjusted, it could be a good image. Juliancolton Talk 00:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, how do you find edit1? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weak Support Edit1 It looks much better, although the flood lighting in the middle is still slightly too bright. Give it one more tone-down, and it should be good. Juliancolton Talk 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lights are a tad too bright, and we also have compression noise in the sky. I suspect you edited this using curves. I wonder if we can recover some colour depth if you upload the original. I suspect, though, that the composition you have chosen is really HDR terrain, so you may not get the result we'd like without reshooting the scene with several different exposures. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. If you use curves to stretch out the highlights, you'd be compressing the colour depth in the sky, and eliminating the artefacts there. However, I don't think anything will fix the blown out highlight in the lower centre of the image. Your time will be better spent just reshooting with a tripod if you can. If you don't have a tripod, this may help you. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is awful as most of the subject is covered in tree branches. The main subject is far too dark. The overall quality is rather bad: the image is noisy, unsharp, and and muddy with artifacts. The angle is awful, it is fairly distorted... The list goes on. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely not Edit 2, aside from the other issues, there is some sort of ghost image in the bottom right corner, and the whole structure seems distorted. vlad§inger ^tlk 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - to be perfectly honest, the bottom two are so many light years better than the first two (image quality wise), a small ghost and a some distortion pale in comparison. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just on the case....See edit 3 - I can sort the cropping and ghosting out if the consensus is that's the way to go. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now edit 4 with cropping and ghosting sorted. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 4 (the one whose image name ends in "edit 3.jpg"). Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 4 Juliancolton (Talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all verticals verticals verticals Mfield (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I could - but I'm not convinced making such an unnatural alteration will benefit the image or it's encyclopedic value - part of the perspective effect, confers height and depth to an image - why do away with that? If we get loads of opposes on that basis I'll do it, but for now I'd rather wait. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]