689:
compared to the awful tone and colour balance, especially in the shadows. I hear the comments of the nominator and accept that the general shift in colour balance I uploaded isn't based on anything objective, but neutral, dense blacks is something any subject in this lighting should definitely have. I still have the PSD file of the edit & could clone out the figure on the left, retaining much of the original's colour balance but beefing up the shadows, if that's likely to help things along. --
577:. I find the Original very good, and I don't believe the Edit's colours are true to what we saw (I was there with author when he took the picture). Some fine details of the edit look weird on my monitor as well (like blueish edges or something) and this is noticeable on the lower part of the façade. Also, should we take into account negatives votes whom reason is the leaning of the right tower when we have (kind of) proven it is how the building actually
310:. Could do with a bit of colour correction I think. I know its a very sodium-light-tinted scene, but its a still a bit warm. The areas of shadow seem a bit peculiar and posterised. Also, its significantly tilted, particularly at the top where the perspective is exaggerated. Could relatively easily be corrected, so I can't see why not. Would support it with the correction of the tilt at the least. The other issues are more minor and optional.
64:
44:
624:
34:
54:
688:
What ghosts? ;o) Apart from the extreme lhs, it's not a simple clone job. The bottom of one of the doors is totally obscured and, like much of the detail behind many of the FG figures, is basically irretrievable, at least without alternative frames to clone from. For me, this is a minor issue anyway,
415:
It really is a very good photograph, the sort of detail you'd see on an old plate negative of the place. Unfortunately, the colour balance looks
Victorian too. Most tellingly, there are no blacks where there should be: silhouetted foreground figures should be black, not red-brown. The same applies to
369:
until the horizontals line up. This is especially noticeable at the top where the right tower is shorter than the left by 28 pixels, and is nearly 2 degrees off horizontal. I really doubt it's engineering fault since this is quite a large discrepancy, and that it gets worse as you go up, which
441:
When looked at with full resolution the detail is impressive, but overall the image is flat and uninteresting with an unattractive Brown
Windsor soup background. The blurred people are also unappealing, even on the thumbnail.
509:
pending photographer's agreement that the colors still look realistic after the edit. The only jpeg artifact I see is around the antenna at the top of the tower; where are the artifacts you are talking about, Kaldari?
330:
The building is not 100% straight, so it should not be straightened in the image for maxiumum encylopaedic value. Please read the successful nomination on
Commons, where many issues were brought up.
632:
Seems like it's a product of the shadow from the neighbouring tower. I dislike the strong sharpening - it should be toned down a bit as it's giving everything a halo hence despite the nice scene
707:- beautifully detailed image, which makes me want to read more about the cathedral. Some of the beautiful detail is lost in the edit - look, for example, at the iron tracery on the doors.
636:. Do you think you could upload a less sharpened version? Looking at the original it's pretty clear that I'm not just imagining that pretty heavey sharpening has been applied. --
416:
detail in the hedgerows and buildings to the sides, I'd rather see no detail at all than colour-aliased "false" detail. HDR mapping problem is my guess, so it may be fixable.
388:
769:
759:
186:
Great pic, but the ghost in the bottom-left corner is distracting. There's also some kind of bright bluish thing there, too; do you know what that is?--
383:
We were very carefull to check that this picture doesn't have perspective problem. The rightmost tower is actually much lower than the left one, and
121:. Notre Dame de Paris is widely considered one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture. It was restored and saved from destruction by
17:
764:
206:
I didn't notice that blue thing until H said something, and now it's all I can look at. The image is great, but that spot's got to go.
610:
466:- colors not appealing (why is the sky brown?). Heavy jpeg artifacts at full resolution. Would look better without the ghosts.
222:
319:
331:
233:. "I ain't scared of no ghosts..." *) but that distracting blue/black "aura" needs to be removed. What on earth
695:
431:
745:
733:
716:
697:
682:
672:
652:
640:
615:
590:
565:
548:
528:
495:
475:
458:
433:
400:
374:
361:
342:
323:
296:
278:
245:
215:
198:
178:
161:
604:
157:
540:
190:
102:
690:
669:
586:
426:
396:
135:
118:
95:
452:
292:
274:
648:
I'm sorry but there is no stitching error... I put a crop of the original image (before stitch)
729:
668:. The color change is for the worse, in my opinion. The original is quite a nice picture. -
471:
211:
269:
It seems to be the screen of a camera in one of the three pictures used for the HDR picture.
600:
561:
316:
153:
91:
387:
show this leaning to the right. Please have a look a discussion on this picture's commons'
77:
Great picture of the
Cathedral. It is in my opinion the best picture we got of Notre Dame .
63:
545:
537:
525:
514:
484:
338:
255:
242:
195:
187:
174:
582:
392:
371:
357:
122:
114:
53:
753:
712:
649:
445:
288:
270:
143:
43:
725:
637:
467:
420:
FWIW I've heard of the leaning towers of Notre Dam before, so no objections there.
207:
623:
557:
311:
33:
742:
679:
522:
511:
492:
334:
238:
170:
353:
98:
708:
488:
221:
678:
Could someone please remove the ghosts before I promote this? Thanks.
418:
I'll try to upload a corrected version myself if I get time later on.
110:
251:
220:
106:
598:. Good pics, but get rid of the ghosts if at all possible.
113:, with its main entrance to the west. It is still used as a
169:, perfect. Sharp, highly encylopaedic, well stitched. --
521:because of lack of agreement about color balance.
556:though I too would like the ghosts to fly away.
517:00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to
8:
599:
536:I'd still like to see the ghosts removed.--
370:correlates well with perspective errors. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
770:Featured picture nominations/November 2007
125:, one of France's most famous architects.
62:
52:
42:
32:
129:translates as "Our Lady" from French.
7:
740:Promoted Image:NotreDameDeParis.jpg
760:Ended featured picture nominations
48:Edit 1, colour and contrast tweaks
24:
117:cathedral and is the seat of the
622:
630:Stitching error (as per crop).
352:Very beautiful image indeed!--
132:Articles this image appears in
1:
616:23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
591:12:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
566:11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
549:00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
529:04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
496:01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
476:22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
459:21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
434:14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
401:12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
375:09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
362:21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
343:19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
324:18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
297:17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
279:14:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
246:11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
216:03:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
199:00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
179:23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
162:22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
765:Featured picture nominations
746:04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
734:18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
717:12:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
698:12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
683:04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
673:05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
653:18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
641:05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
101:on the eastern half of the
786:
487:would be the reason. See
226:
70:
60:
50:
40:
287:Problem corrected...
224:
66:
56:
46:
36:
151:Support as nominator
534:Weak support edit 1
423:Edit 1 now uploaded
231:Conditional Support
204:Conditional Support
136:Notre Dame de Paris
119:Archbishop of Paris
84:Notre Dame de Paris
614:
391:on this issue. --
227:
86:, known simply as
71:
68:No stitching error
61:
51:
41:
609:
322:
259:
225:A strange "aura"?
777:
722:Support Original
705:Support Original
662:Support Original
626:
607:
571:Support Original
457:
455:
448:
314:
249:
80:Proposed caption
785:
784:
780:
779:
778:
776:
775:
774:
750:
749:
485:Light pollution
453:
446:
443:
256:Lonesome Ghosts
58:Stitching Error
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
783:
781:
773:
772:
767:
762:
752:
751:
737:
736:
719:
701:
700:
676:
675:
670:Werideatdusk33
658:
657:
656:
655:
619:
618:
593:
568:
554:Support edit 1
551:
531:
506:Support edit 1
501:
500:
499:
498:
479:
478:
461:
436:
413:support edit 1
406:
405:
404:
403:
378:
377:
364:
346:
345:
327:
326:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
282:
281:
261:
260:
219:
218:
201:
181:
167:Support Edit 1
164:
147:
146:
141:
138:
133:
130:
123:Viollet-le-Duc
115:Roman Catholic
103:Île de la Cité
81:
78:
75:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
782:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
755:
748:
747:
744:
741:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
699:
696:
694:
693:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
674:
671:
667:
666:Oppose Edit 1
663:
660:
659:
654:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
635:
631:
629:
625:
617:
612:
606:
602:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:Oppose Edit 1
572:
569:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
550:
547:
544:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
527:
524:
520:
516:
513:
508:
507:
503:
502:
497:
494:
490:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
460:
456:
450:
449:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
429:
424:
422:<edit: -->
419:
414:
412:
408:
407:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
368:
365:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
328:
325:
321:
318:
313:
309:
306:
305:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
257:
253:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
223:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
197:
194:
193:
189:
185:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:User:Sanchezn
142:
139:
137:
134:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:
93:
89:
85:
82:
79:
76:
73:
72:
69:
65:
59:
55:
49:
45:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
739:
738:
721:
704:
691:
677:
665:
661:
634:weak support
633:
627:
621:
620:
595:
581:look like ?
578:
574:
570:
553:
541:
533:
518:
505:
504:
463:
444:
438:
427:
421:
417:
410:
409:
384:
366:
349:
307:
266:
234:
230:
203:
191:
183:
166:
150:
126:
87:
83:
67:
57:
47:
37:
27:
601:Malinaccier
464:Weak oppose
350:Support any
308:Weak oppose
154:Bewareofdog
754:Categories
411:Conditonal
389:nomination
320:(Contribs)
127:Notre Dame
88:Notre Dame
583:Blieusong
454:SilkyTalk
393:Blieusong
372:antilived
99:cathedral
28:NotreDame
650:Sanchezn
611:contribs
447:SilkTork
289:Sanchezn
271:Sanchezn
38:Original
726:Laitche
638:Fir0002
596:Support
519:Neutral
489:Skyglow
468:Kaldari
267:Comment
208:SingCal
184:Comment
140:Creator
94:, is a
92:English
692:mikaul
628:Oppose
558:H92110
526:(talk)
515:(talk)
439:Oppose
428:mikaul
367:Oppose
317:(Talk)
312:Diliff
237:it? --
111:France
96:Gothic
74:Reason
743:MER-C
680:MER-C
546:oHelp
523:Enuja
512:Enuja
493:MER-C
335:Aqwis
252:Goofy
250:Said
239:Janke
196:oHelp
171:Aqwis
107:Paris
16:<
730:talk
713:talk
605:talk
587:talk
579:does
573:and
562:talk
538:Here
472:talk
397:talk
385:does
358:talk
354:Mbz1
339:talk
293:talk
275:talk
258:"...
254:in "
243:Talk
212:talk
188:Here
175:talk
158:talk
724:--
709:TSP
248:*)
105:in
90:in
756::
732:)
715:)
664:,
589:)
564:)
491:.
474:)
425:--
399:)
360:)
341:)
333:--
315:|
295:)
277:)
241:|
235:is
214:)
177:)
160:)
109:,
728:(
711:(
613:)
608:•
603:(
585:(
560:(
542:T
470:(
451:*
395:(
356:(
337:(
291:(
273:(
210:(
192:T
173:(
156:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
