Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rosenkranz-Basilika, Berlin-Steglitz, 1706281200, ako.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Rosenkranz-Basilika, Berlin-Steglitz, 1706281200, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 18:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rosenkranz-Basilika, Berlin-Steglitz
Maybe I'll have to move to Berlin next year... we'll see. (In any case I'd prefer going back home to Munich but that's not very likely at the moment) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is only a your, for me very wrong, opinion. Isn't realist --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I fully agree with King of Hearts, very well done. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I dont agree here. People are kiling photo with weird stitching (aka, put as much as you can get, and just correct distortion). What happaned to fisheye...i know is prohitibed here, by some users. Check the lights, they are spoiled now. See sharp border around it. --Mile (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment These "distortion" votes are driving me crazy. No one of you has ever been inside this church and you don't seem to care much about optics. It's a wide-angle view and such views do always stretch the corners a little bit. That's as normal as the fact that longer focal lengths compress a view or that portraits usually have a shallow DoF. Are we supposed to only use focal lengths of 35mm or 50mm in the future? How can you show the interior of such a church as a whole without using shorter focal lengths? Guys, I'm so tired of having this discussion again and again. Yesterday I moved to a new city (I don't have a stable internet connection so far and it will take a while until I got one) and I think I will take this opportunity for a longer wikibreak. Commons is getting more and more frustrating. Besides the obvious revenge-voting we have here it's very sad to read such comments like the one(s) above about pictures like this one. I think some colleagues here don't really understand how much work it is to create such a picture. Not only did I spent hours of phone-calls, e-mails and meetings until I got the permission to even take this photograph. Then I took a whole day free from work to go there and take the pictures. After that I spend nearly a whole night with postprocessing and uploading. It's hurting me to see some guys in bad mood just come around here and put their {{o}} after having had a look at his picture for some seconds. That's just a lack of respect for each others work. Please at least try to understand how this picture was is created and why it looks that way. I know I'm not perfect myself but personally I normally don't vote on pictures when I feel that I'm not competent enough to judge it (e.g. wildlife photography/sports/cars and so on). I think that if someone has a problem with understanding architecture or interiors he/she should restrain from voting or just give a comment without voting. Opposing because "the lamps are distorted" is simply bullshit. Sorry for the rant, but I just felt I had to say this, especiallay after I had almost the same discussion at Dewiki where one of my (as I personally feel) best pictures was reviewed in a way that was not only disrespectful, but even insulting. I can't stand this any more at the moment. Sorry. As I already said above I think I need a break. Maybe I'll be back in some weeks. Thanks however for all your votes and reviews, especially (but not only) for those supporting my nomination. Take care! --Code (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment But end it !!!!!!!!Here the most vindictive is YOU! Only you're taking time to take pictures? I HAVE LOSE a HOLY DAY FOR 2 MINUTES TO DO A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DOME IN SAN PIETRO (which is not a church dispersed in germany!). You say a tide of bullshit and allow you to pass as a victim! What courage did you have? What man are you? Feign this your intention to make the saint! Whether you're here or not I'm indifferent but do not let yourself go for a victim! You are just a vengeful and savage person! And this is TOO DISTORTED --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Livioandronico2013 but do you really think, that been offensive and rude is appropriate here? I don't think so. // Martin K. (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you read everything .... say that we are bullshit and that we are avenged for you is a compliment Martin K. ? Greetings. --LivioAndronico (talk)
Code articulated his frustration about some of the votes without attacking anybody personally. He just wrote about his perception and his consequences. However insulting somebody, like you did, is something completely different. Something I don't like to read here... // Martin K. (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But finish and read. Being generic does not mean to insult! Anyway, I understand how you think it, I'll notice goodbye --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"generic"? // Martin K. (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 but I hope you don't take too long a break :) - Benh (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-1 take too long a break, maybe You will begin not to be the victim but the balanced person!--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your Wiki-break, and may the new home be a blessing for you. I haven't voted on this photo precisely because I'm not feeling competent to pass judgment on this question of distortion; however, I have the utmost respect for your work and look forward to your return. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Spurzem and others. Respect for this work, but everything must fit here for a pro. Je-str (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Distortion is managed well. The extent of distortion is not outside that previously passed in the excellent series of cathedral images by User:Diliff a couple years ago.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree that there is some distortion in both corners, but still minor topic in comparison to the quality overall and excellence of the place Poco2 20:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In case someone is interested. --Code (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There's a little bit of CA on the candles in the bottom left. Perhaps I should strong oppose until that is fixed :-). Seems that's what people do these days. I agree that stitching does permit one to create rectilinear projections that can be too extreme for comfort, especially vertically as the vertical midpoint is often at waist height rather than the centre of the frame. I've opposed several of Diliff's when I felt this was too much. However that is not always the case. One of my own FPs File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg is cropped vertically as the round lamp-holders in the corners appeared quite distorted -- so I cropped them out. That was an unstitched single-frame photo with (the equivalent of) a 24mm lens with Lightroom's lens corrections applied. So even a modest wide angle image can produce noticeable distortion on certain shapes. Circular objects, like lamps and columns and people, are particularly eye-catching, whereas rectangular objects can get away with being skewed. One doesn't see this with normal vision since you can only concentrate on the central portion of your vision and so move your entire field of view every time you look around. With a static image like this, that isn't possible. The 360 panorama Code links to is more representative of human vision if you focus only on the centre of your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I really like it but it is definitely distorted. -- Pofka (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose as Pofka. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 02:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rosenkranz-Basilika,_Berlin-Steglitz,_1706281200,_ako.jpg&oldid=252314970"