112:
already been cropped, though I didn't crop it more tightly due to wanting to include the coloured light on the walls on the left. Cropping more tightly is of course possible. Adjusting levels needs more research since I don't know how to do that :) I tried smaller versions in photoshop but I felt that the extra quality was worth it. Also I don't really see what not -- Mediawiki handles smaller versions automatically and those that want the highest quality possible can have it. It was ISO 200. What makes you doubt that?
45:
34:
291:
220:
I think the second version would look better in an article. You need to see this image at something close to full resolution to really appreciate it, but as it is the first version looks poor as a thumbnail because a lot of the image is completely dead space, where it is impossible to make out detail
132:
I like the PC'ed/cropped #2 better, but I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I am surprised it is ISO 200, because the colors in the stonework are so blotchy in the upper right hand corner, but I guess it is quite dark in that region. Maybe it is something that came out in levels. Is there some way
111:
I'm not sure exactly how to reduce the noise. It's already had quite a lot of perspective correction done, though I like the way it is now -- I get the feeling I'm standing at the bottom of a massive window. If the consensus is that more perspective correction should be done that is possible. It's
208:
The camera was outputting RAW so it's exactly as the CCD (or is it a CMOS sensor?) saw it -- Rawshooter premium was then used to convert to 16 bit TIFFs (I understand RAW is 12bit so converting to 8bit tiff at that stage would lose some info I think...) with white balance temperature of 6100K and
262:
article is already very nicely illustrated ;-) Stained glass can be tricky to get the exposure right and this does a good job when examined in full detail. But the overall composition is a little weak, largely because the stained glass itself is less than stellar, compared to say a
176:
is such a gallery already. Super pic though. I disagree with Joke137. Given the resolution I find the small amount of noise perfectly acceptable. Don't play with the levels unless you think the pic truly misrepresents the scene. I'm guessing the stonework
279:. Also we should really have a better image description, saying at least which window this is (it looks like the West window) and ideally identifying the subject and the artist. Oh and yes, Liverpool Cathedral is generally very dark and heavy. --
198:
You misunderstood me. I was implying that the stonework may have been darker in the photo as it came out of the camera, and has been lightened so that it is possible to make out some detail. I agree that it is fine as it is, though.
209:
tint -10. The tiffs were then stitched together in PTGui. No other processing apart from converting the resulting 16bit tiff to 8bit in
Photoshop CS2 and then saving as a JPEG. Cheers.
221:
or texture in the stonework. I don't know if this is something to take into consideration for featured pictures. Moreover, I think this image is better than any image currently in the
181:
to be as dark as it looks and anyway the shadow detail looks just fine on my (calibrated) monitor. Using levels to lift the shadow falsely will not make the image look better ~
310:
preferably original; it looks worse when it's small, but it's better in the close-up. It's not quite fair to compare it to
Tiffany, etc.; it's a different style.--
288:
Lol, indeed it is nicely illustrated. I think you're right, it is at the west end -- I've updated the caption here. It's exactly the opposite the high altar,
435:
17:
56:. It's an extremely colourful window and I hope my photo has done justice to it. I especially like the coloured light on the left hand wall.
418:
406:
384:
367:
355:
330:
314:
298:
283:
244:
229:
213:
203:
189:
162:
153:
137:
122:
105:
68:
225:
article, and is as good an example as I've ever seen, so probably it ought to replace one of the more mundane images in the "gallery." –
238:
351:
37:
290:
363:- very detailed, but not stunnig and too dark for me. It looks horrible a thumb. I wish you better luck next time.
342:. I just don't find the subject that interesting or beautiful. There are better stained glass out there. :)
172:
although I'd be happier seeing it making a more convincing contribution in another article. It's a pity
270:
44:
101:
If this were done, I would consider supporting. Also, does it need to be 10mb? Is it really ISO 200? –
33:
398:
259:
53:
380:
186:
150:
348:
133:
to reduce the chrominance noise there? I'm not really familiar with noise reduction tools. –
393:
267:
276:
415:
280:
273:
326:; upon returning to this image after looking at some other FP's, it's underwhelming.--
429:
376:
327:
311:
295:
241:
222:
210:
173:
159:
119:
113:
65:
364:
264:
226:
200:
182:
146:
134:
102:
343:
234:
78:
A good photo of a beautiful subject. Could use some work in photoshop to
158:
Ergh thanks, I thought I'd pressed save, but obviously not. Fixed.
92:
correct perspective so that the windows are square and vertical
40:'s west window. The uppermost window is the Bedicite window.
145:
Very nice pic. But not currently illusrating any article. ~
237:also has a rather beautiful stained glass pic --
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
43:
32:
7:
52:One of the stained glass windows in
48:Perspective corrected and cropped.
436:Ended featured picture nominations
89:the chroma noise in the stonework)
85:reduce noise in the dark regions (
28:Liverpool Cathedral stained glass
24:
289:
239:Image:St_Vitus_stained_glass.jpg
95:possibly adjust levels and crop?
1:
419:04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
407:15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
385:15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
368:23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
331:05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
356:13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
315:05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
299:11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
284:22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
245:21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
230:21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
214:21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
204:21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
190:20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
163:19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
154:19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
138:20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
123:20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
106:19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
69:19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
38:Liverpool Anglican Cathedral
452:
277:William Morris and Co.
49:
41:
258:. Nice, although the
47:
36:
260:Liverpool Cathedral
54:Liverpool Cathedral
50:
42:
405:
354:
443:
402:
396:
346:
293:
170:Support original
451:
450:
446:
445:
444:
442:
441:
440:
426:
425:
400:
118:Please see #2.
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
449:
447:
439:
438:
428:
427:
423:
413:Not promoted
410:
409:
387:
370:
358:
336:
335:
334:
333:
318:
317:
303:
302:
301:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
218:
217:
216:
193:
192:
167:
166:
165:
140:
127:
126:
125:
99:
98:
97:
96:
93:
90:
80:
79:
71:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
448:
437:
434:
433:
431:
424:
421:
420:
417:
414:
408:
403:
395:
391:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
369:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
350:
345:
341:
338:
337:
332:
329:
325:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
313:
309:
308:
304:
300:
297:
292:
287:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
272:
268:
266:
261:
257:
254:
253:
246:
243:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
228:
224:
223:stained glass
219:
215:
212:
207:
206:
205:
202:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
175:
174:Stained glass
171:
168:
164:
161:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
131:
128:
124:
121:
117:
116:
115:
110:
109:
108:
107:
104:
94:
91:
88:
84:
83:
82:
81:
77:
76:
72:
70:
67:
63:
60:Self nom and
59:
58:
57:
55:
46:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
422:
412:
411:
389:
375:per Diliff.
372:
360:
339:
323:
306:
305:
256:Weak support
255:
178:
169:
142:
129:
100:
86:
74:
73:
61:
51:
27:
392:per above.
235:user:Diliff
394:Flcelloguy
352:(Contribs)
275:or even a
416:Raven4x4x
281:Solipsist
430:Category
377:enochlau
328:ragesoss
312:ragesoss
296:chowells
242:chowells
211:chowells
160:chowells
120:chowells
114:chowells
66:chowells
324:Neutral
307:Support
271:Tiffany
265:Chagall
183:Veledan
147:Veledan
143:Comment
130:Support
62:support
390:Oppose
373:Oppose
365:Renata
361:Oppose
349:(Talk)
344:Diliff
340:Oppose
75:Oppose
401:note?
179:ought
16:<
381:talk
269:, a
227:Joke
201:Joke
187:Talk
151:Talk
135:Joke
103:Joke
87:i.e.
64:. -
432::
399:A
383:)
347:|
294:.
185:•
149:•
404:)
397:(
379:(
199:–
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
