Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Air Force Academy Chapel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 09:33:44 (UTC)

Original - United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel

Reason: High quality, high EV, impressive photo
Articles in which this image appears: United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Carol M. Highsmith

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ but it looks underexposed. But this is probably my favorite angle of the building. Very clean looking. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I guess I have no right in supporting if I find fault with the image. The exposure really needs to be corrected and the shadows brightened up for details. I love the angle though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose With the sun hitting at this angle with this level of brightness the front is very dark and hard if not impossible to see any details... Other than that though it's all good... gazhiley.co.uk 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find the photo underexposed at all. Short of creating a high-dynamic range image, areas in a high contrast photo such as this will be darker and others lighter. There are areas of this photo that come close to "pure white". Rather than allowing them to "blow out", the exposure seems to capture them. --C.J. (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The front is so dark you can't tell what is at the top or below the steps... One assumes that there are doors there, but it could just as easily be a blank wall for all we know... That to me is a big flaw... gazhiley 08:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see the doors... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well you must have better eyes than me... With my brightness and contrast both on 100 I can see some vertical lines that could be door frames but could also be anything else... gazhiley 13:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of whether or not you can see the doors. Of course they're there. Ignoring the building, the sky is unnaturally dark, and the entire concrete walkway in the foreground is dark. The image is underexposed, though I'm sure someone with histograms can prove or disprove this. Whether it bothers people or not, that's a different matter. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the problem with the exposure. The photographer was exposing for the interesting looking building, not the sky. In order to expose for such a light colored building, everything else has to go dark, including the sky. Ever heard of using polarizers to darken the sky? - Jiyangc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyangc (talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The front is borderline underexposed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see the doors at the front just fine. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. I been to "zoomie church" and this image doesn't really capture the spectacular nature of it. A larger display size would help some, but even then doesn't really give you the feel for it (I clicked through.)TCO (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I am not a fan of the dark area around the doors --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all this underexposure stuff doesn't make sense as the front just happens to be in the shadows and falling outside dynamic range. If you expose for the front, then the sides will be blown out and lose detail. Unless you can find another picture with the sun hitting the front, then this pic is fine, as the structure seems more important than the front door. - Jiyangc

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]