Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 18:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pantages HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pantages HDR.jpg
CommentLlez, a vertical "perspective correction" would result in the ceiling being lost entirely. This is because the camera is looking up, at the edge of the ceiling. It would be hard to take a horizontal photo at stage-level which included the ceiling without using fisheye lens or a stitched photo with an extreme vertical-field-of-view. The latter would involve other distortions which are unappealing too. I think we should accept the image for what it is -- a photo looking up at the ceiling taken with an ultra-wide-angle lens. At this level of wide-angle-of-view we can only trade one distortion for another. I don't see any unsharpness in the lower corners, which are just seats anyway. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree, you loose some parts of the right and left border, but nothing of the ceiling. See here my proposition. And if you make a panorama view, you don't even loose the side parts, too --Llez (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an alt
Well that didn't crop as much as I expected, but now the proportions are all totally wrong. As I said, you have to trade one distortion for another. I'd rather the room looked like a room, rather than some nightmare where the huge over-stretched ceiling was coming down on me. -- Colin (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which "highlights" are people complaining about? The white spotlights shining at the camera should be pure white. Totally blown out. If anything less than that they are not being recorded properly. The art deco lights are nicely bright since they are indeed bright enough to light up the whole room. -- Colin (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That always depends on how you - literally - look at things and how you take your pictures accordingly. Here and in situations like this one the viewer is in fact looking up, as a photographer as well as a visitor in situ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this the perspective actually adds to the photo, making it less static like a starship taking off. --Cart(talk)22:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is like collapsing. Using a full frame body would have been the solution here. Also find Llez's version improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because 11mm on a full frame body is not 16.5mm. Which means you can see larger and record more from the same distance, using for example the Sigma 12-24 mm f/4 DG HSM ART, the Nikon AF-S 14–24 mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens, or the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11mm is shorter than 12 or 14, that would certainly be enough on a FF body for that kind of large plan. I don't know Nikon very well, but if this lens is compatible with a FF camera, then just a new body will fit. If the lens is not compatible, then both the body + the focal are required. But changing nothing, just making a panorama built from two pictures assembled together in post-process would also have been successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLooking at the sides I get dizzy I find the falling verticals on both sides annoying, it needs a perspective correction --Poco209:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, do you get dizzy when you look at this, this, this, this, this, and this? Charles, there are plenty "Successful FP nominations of buildings" that have perspective and cylindrical distortions. This, this, this, this, this, this, to pick just a few examples. I don't think you are being fair here, Poco, when you have plenty "point camera upwards" FPs yourself. And Basile's comments about FF make no sense. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had a look at the examples you quote Colin and the distortions appear appropriate and artistic, though I doubt I voted for any. I don't find the distortion on this nomination artistic. Charles (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on "I get dizzy, it needs a perspective correction"
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Are you not the one, Colin, that constatly critics me for not reviewing more at FPC? When I then do so you also seem to have a problem. In the images of mine you have linked above the perspective correction makes no sense as it is the main element of the composition. In the image that we review here, and that's what matters (would you mind if we stick to it? open a delist request for all of them if you like), that's rather a flaw and not adding anything to the final composition. Poco214:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, like your oppose that you get "dizzy" looking at this, you have here had Benh complain he gets "a pain in my neck by just looking at [your photo]". But here you benefit from Daniel "forgiv[ing] the distortion at the bottom since you had deliberately tilted the camera upward". And here Arion is dizzy with support. Here Jebulon finds the strong distortion too much. Both Diliff and I disagree. For example, "This is a valid perspective choice, rather than a technical error", and "I think here "pointing the camera up" is a good creative choice here. It displays aspects of the view one sees if one were there, looking up". Diliff also argues "Poco has traded tilted vertical lines in order to reduce perspective distortion". Here I support your sloping verticals with "Amazing subject and well captured" -- no insulting comments about feeling sick from me. In this nomination you dared to offer a very non-standard cylindrical projection of an interior. Of course some complained of the distortion, but your success was because the community did not demand it "needs" to be corrected to rectilinear.
So, Poco, as a photographer who has more than many benefited from the community, and me, supporting and arguing against conservative opposes of your "distorted" pictures, how dare you reject my defence of this distorted picture, and your terse mocking oppose, with petty irrelevant nonsense about your poor review/nomination ratios. Is your vote holier than anyone elses, so that you are happy for me to argue with them in support of your nominations, but I cannot argue with you when you make exactly the same conservative comments about what is acceptable for interior architecture? As Llez's version shows, the apparently "needed" "correction" results in an image where the ratio of scene above the eye-view is far more than below, which is unnatural. The effect is that the ceiling is larger than the room. The photographer's artistic choices, like the choices you have made, are ignored in favour of dogma about standard architectural photography. I could say "Looking at the sides I get dizzy, it needs a perspective correction" about lots of your photos, Poco, and you would be annoyed at my artistic ignorance vs your creative judgement. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear Poco thinks it is OK to mock a red-link photographer. OMG this is so bad I feel sick looking at it. Doh! Newbie mistake needs fixing. Not acceptable at all. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are being mean hear suggesting what the motivation for my vote it. Please, give up putting words in my mouth, and respect others' opinions, even if they don't concur with yours. --Poco217:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, I do respect other people's opinions, though that doesn't stop anyone from disagreeing with them and saying so and why. We are not at kindergarden, where no child can ever be criticised. Unlike you, I respect the opinion of this photographer that the best way to shoot this scene is to point the camera up, and don't feel that it is so fundamentally wrong that it "needs" correcting. You however, would rather insult him by saying the result makes you ill. And I'm still waiting for an explanation for why this makes you dizzy but your own "point the camera up" photographs induce no vertigo. We'd all have learned something if you drew on your experience to explain how it doesn't work in this case. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, you are 100% right here and this is to support you within this degenerated context. Absolutely no agression, no mockery, no insult from your side since the beginning of this thread. But more the endless monologue of a ridiculous joker decided to direct their fury against the consensus. Thanks for your review, and keep sharing your opinions serenely -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, it is quite fine to disagree on Commons, and to be critical of what other people have said or do. You can disagree with what I've written just as I can disagree with what Poco has writtern. What isn't acceptable, ever, is to make direct personal attacks like "ridiculous joker". That path will lead you to a block, like it did to your our friend Livio. The community is evenly split on this photo, which I don't find surprising at all, and I'm not in the least upset about that: Commons is often quite conservative about creative photography choices. My problem is with what Poco wrote. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly advice: Even if you take this lightly, Colin is right. On this site hard debates are totally ok, personal attacks and name-calling are not. Perhaps not the way you are used to debating, but please keep it in mind. We don't want to lose you. --Cart(talk)11:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any "Livio". I never had any friend called 'Livio" here since I'm active on Commons. Totally wrong. Maybe stories from another planet. Funny, then -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it sad that the dispute has to go so far. Colin and Basile and Poco are all well respected contributors (unlike the mentioned Livio). --A.Savin13:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is actually the point here, and as my last intention was to hurt any feelings, if it is of any help I stroke through the "Looking at the sides I get dizzy" by "I find the falling verticals on both sides annoying". Poco219:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WANTED: Admin who is a total meatpuppet for banned user. Off-Commons communication channel required. Subtlety not required. Will pay in pizza. Collect only. -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either, why he defends him at every occasion, but still, I don't think that Basile Morin and Livioandronico have much in common. --A.Savin23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Dionnemusic - uploaded by Dionnemusic - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment I miss a perspective correction and there is some unsharpness in the lower corners --Llez (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Too distorted perspective, and too strong highlights on top --A.Savin 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
