Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Фотография интерьера.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2016 at 11:29:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Фотография интерьера.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Фотография интерьера.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created and uploaded by Imsergeys - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Note that this is a 360° pano. --A.Savin 11:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend viewing in the 360° panoramic viewer. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Filename: Fotograph of interiors (sic!), no valid category - the description is ok, but it would be nice to have a second one in english. The picture itself needs reprocession due to CA. Its oversaturated and oversharpened. --Hubertl 12:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on technical issues (I'm not the author and I cannot produce 360° panos myself), but "no valid category" is a lie. --A.Savin 12:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten, Alexander? --Hubertl 12:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antworte doch besser, ob deine Behauptung ungültiger Kategorien nicht tatsächlich frei erfunden ist. Aber du kannst ja eh nur Dummgelaber... --A.Savin 13:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Cool when viewed in the pano viewer recommended by Colin. I've added a short English description and put it in the specific category Category:Maltsev Palace (Balakovo). INeverCry 20:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - That's fantastic viewed with the 360° panoramic viewer.  Support, provided that "360° view of" is added to the beginning of the description and "viewing with the 360° panoramic viewer is recommended" at the end of it. I don't think it's sufficient to have it as a category because a lot off people won't look at the categories and won't realize that they should use the 360° panoramic viewer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've re-added that part of my description. There's a template for it below the info template, but perhaps the description indication is more noticeable and helpful for viewers. INeverCry 23:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ikan Kekek + @INeverCry - now I have to admit that I didn't know that there has been own category for this building since 2013. Nice to have constructive suggestions in this nom, not only stupid personal attacks. --A.Savin 23:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be helpful, and Merry Christmas, if you're celebrating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Informative to be sure, and nice of you to make this attempt, but there's too much clipping, CA and distortion to make this FP-level. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I'm very sorry because I really love these 360° panos, but the quality of this one is not FP level. It looks completely overprocessed regarding contrast, clarity and sharpness. --Code (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I agree with Code: It is completely overprocessed regarding local contrast. dllu (t,c) 20:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Overprocessed, and I dislike very much this kind of panorama.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC) OK with the Panoramaviewer, excellent! I use this kind of tool at my job, and it is very impressive. Very good and "fluent" on a tablett with a "finger pencil". But the picture is not good.--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Overprocessed. — Julian H.^✈ 10:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Per Julian. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment This is one of very rare cases I simply don't get such an oppose orgy. Did anyone of you look at the picture via 360° panoramic viewer? If not, so it is not surprising; when viewed simply as 100% zoom of the original file, strong distortions and unsharpnesses at the edges are the result. It is probably normal for a true 360° pano. But when viewed via the pano viewer, the detail is actually excellent in any place. OK, there are some strong highlights and flares on windows, but it's all not that dramatic (the patterns of the curtains are still visible), and what do you actually expect? A 360° HDR pano? ;-) And there is no dramatic (over-)saturation or CA visible. Many other FPC with similar or worse issues are being rubber-stamped here, and these are often simple shots; no panos and let alone no 360° ones! --A.Savin 11:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't vote here anymore, but I just saw the image in preview and thought that it is a shame that the processing is bad. The core problem to me is not clipping (where good HDR helps), but rather a excessive use of clarity, blacks and/or contrast that makes the image look entirely unrealistic. Getting the look right for an interior is much harder than for an exterior, but here the edges and structures are overemphasized. I guess that the image could be better if reprocessed more neutrally, but I don't know if the uploader is active. --DXR (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on, it would take less than an hour of postprocessing to make this one FP. I don't expect every 360° panorama to be like this (yes, a 360° HDR pano), but we should at least expect it to meet QI requirements which is not the case here. --Code (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mind the projection used (and the consequent distortion) for the 360 degree panorama, but my main gripe is with the local constrast, i.e. "clarity" slider being dragged to an extreme. It's as if someone passed this through a high pass filter. dllu (t,c) 00:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, it is useless,  I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 13:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]