Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water museum in SPB.jpg

File:Water museum in SPB.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 17:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Water museum in SPB.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water museum in SPB.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I think that adjusting perspective to make the subject sides vertical distorts the image giving the appearance of a wider top-of-the-buiding. With real vision the perspective would be different than this. While perspective control is helpful at times, on a two dimensional plane is good to have visual clues (converging verticals, etc.) to give as a "real" feeling of the subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• This building seems to has an outward projection for the top level (note the pillars); so I'm not sure about the perspectives. JKadavoor Jee 06:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I did not distorted any building or streetlamp while postprocessing the image. It all depends on edit methodics of perspective correction. So all verticals remained vertical, as it is in the real world (look at the rest images of the water tower in the category). --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is: Did you correct the image via software? Sofware distorts while maintaining perpendiculars, the only "natural way" of correcting perspective is with perspective correction lenses or view cameras. The brain expects to see vanishing perspectivs, as in towers or roads... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've corrected the image via software. But I do this in manual mode. Controlling the proportions. In nature I see exactly the same picture, not а cone instead of a cylindric tower. The brain processes the living image, correcting perspective distortions. Here we have to help him. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in nature one would see a cone and the brain would correct to a cone, but it still wopuld be a cone. Given that you used a wide angle, the correction is significant. I would "cone" the tower slightly for a more natural rendering. Software perspective correction is not true perspective correction because it is not optical. In my opinion, it is slightly overdone here. I will not oppose, but I will not support either. I would do that correction and crop the left side... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. The composition could be better, but very nice lighting, colors, and atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose boring and bad composition. The building on the left and foreground elements are disturbing, the tower (which doesn't look straight to me anyhow) is unspectacularly centered; not the best perspective. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per King of Hearts. - A.Savin 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten. Tomer T (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten. Yann (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)