Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bahai House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois

Bahai House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 02:03:59 (UTC)

Reason: Good image quality; we currently don't have a featured picture for that unique building; has excellent encyclopedic value showcasing the building and the intricate patterns carved on it, as well as the pool.
Articles in which this image appears: Bahá'í House of Worship (Wilmette, Illinois)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: User:Purpy Pupple

Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- I am aware of the slight halo around the dome. This was a tonemapped HDR image from three exposures ±2ev, since the building, the sky, and the pool are in very different lighting conditions and only doing so will properly expose the entire image. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a beautiful image and I would love to see it featured! The only thing I'm concerned about (and I know this is a problem with making HDRs) is the ghosting. If you could upload the three images used in making the HDR, I could try fixing that for you. Other than that, FEATURE!!! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be fantastic image for a graphic novel, but not for an encyclopedia. The lines in the sky are impossibly dramatic, and on close inspection they appear to be fake. Detail is lacking in the background and appears to have been blurred. Something also looks funny about the group of people on the right and their shadows on the stairs- are there three people with shadows of four people?Shroomydan (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is an incredibly fake image. Just look at the front door and you will see something funky happening. PFs should not be about CGIs. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have uploaded the original picture for comparison. Note that the sky is completely original and not fake. There has been no intentional blurring, although the +2ev frame suffers from a slight amount of camera shake and/or misfocusing. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You moved the people around. It's fake.Shroomydan (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved I have addressed your concerns in the Alt, which is entirely unedited after tonemapping. I have also changed the tonemapping parameters to mitigate the dramatic sky and reduce halation. Notice the people in the doorway. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is too artificial-looking. Just look at the coming from the left side of the fountain. Why not simply take a regular picture of this rather than try to alter it digitally with this much effort? -- mcshadypl ^T^C 07:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will notice in the "Even More Original" picture that in the regular picture, it is impossible to expose both the building and the pool correctly at the same time.Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This image suggests that it is just a matter of taking the photograph at the right time of day. I'd suggest blending two exposures in photoshop over HDR. A polarising filter might also be helpful. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an alternate photo based on the three exposures provided. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Alternative Pic by AmericanXplorer13, other pics look more like a painting for me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose all. Even the last one looks like a CGI. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support any of them, apart from the shit ones. I know this won't make a difference, but I just wanna say that they all really show the building in a really clear and illustrative way. They look nice, they're interesting, and the illustrate the topic. I say "yes, yes, yes!" Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose All fake images and we have one VP too --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you kindly elaborate on what you mean by "fake"? Nothing has been fabricated. High dynamic range imaging and tone mapping are well-respected techniques. Please propose a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. Also, it is arguable that this nomination has more EV than the VP you mentioned since it also shows the pool and has more detail. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It gives an too artificial look and looks like a painted picture. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just doesn't look real. I'm distracted by how it looks like it has been painted. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Alternate by AmericanXplorer13 - If it's for voting. It looks real in this one. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, mine is for voting. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support Alternate by AmericanXplorer13, Oppose all others~~. AmericanXplorer's is the only one that looks even slightly realistic. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all per Nergaal. I didn't notice how many flaws there are. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who support this should take a closer look at the technical aspects of the image. The alt by AX for example: take a look at the "column" right above the entrance and you will see how horrible the colors get just left of the column. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all: Sharpness just not there. Maedin\^talk 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]