Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trinity College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg

File:Trinity College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2014 at 12:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Trinity College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trinity College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail, impressive place... and image. --Cayambe (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support All is straight, even the "pews"  ! Very nice, excellent quality (as usual?...) typically english place, make me think to Handel, or to elizabethan music I like very much.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support  Question Excellent Sharpening and EV. In order to make this section a learning mechanism for all of us. Could be nice if Diliff add EXIF data to this image, what do you think about that?. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a little EXIF data and a comment saying "Stitched with PTGui and tonemapped using Photomatix from 50 images - ten segments, each comprised of five exposures: f/10 and 1/8s, 0.5s, 2s, 8s and 30s at ISO 640." Some EXIF data from the original JPG/RAW files gets lost or becomes irrelevant/misleading as an image goes through PTGui/Photomatix/Photoshop. My own stitched images using Hugin/Photoshop seem to retain camera details, timestamp and Hugin projection information but not lens or exposure details. Even Hugin information like field-of-view can be misleading if the image is further cropped. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Question I underestand, What is the best way that you recommend, to re-add this information to the photo?. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it is important to embed this in the photo rather than just add to the image description page? I suppose one could use any description field. It would be hard to mandate using the EXIF for this because some tools don't offer a lot of control. It is hard enough making sure the JPG has a colourspace defined, even though that is a basic requirement for any JPG. Seems some software doesn't care much about accurate colour, or has export options that trim off the vital EXIF data along with the optional. -- Colin (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Pleclown (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Usual fine quality. However, there is no colour space saved with the file, which there should be. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 12:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Not my choice for the crop, but no arguments on the quality or subject. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --DXR (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors