Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 01:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •  Info Another overwhelming picture of Diliff with 180 megapixels, uploaded by Diliff - nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- The Photographer (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Thanks for the nomination. It's quite a spectacular church and worth viewing at 100% for the amazing detail (if it doesn't crash your browser!). :-) Diliff (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yes The Photographer, wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support amazing! 140 pictures were taken to make this. Even with a high quality panoramic plate, that takes patience (not to mention the dedication of visiting many churches to document such beautiful artwork and architecture). The only way this picture could have been improved was to use focus stacking to get all the chairs in focus. Just kidding. Minor point: in the image description, the lens is stated as the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM which is ambiguous and can be interpreted as the inferior Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art which I think you used. dllu (t,c) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more confusing actually, I copied and pasted the template from another image I used it on, and adjusted all the exposure values but forgot to change the lens details, it was actually the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens that I used on this image. I'll fix it now. And you know, I've even thought about focus stacking my interiors, but it's unfortunately completely impractical because there's no way to automate it. I could use Magiclantern which has autofocus stepper-based focus stacking but as far as I know, you can't combine that with exposure bracketing for the HDR side of things. And I'd rather keep the HDR than unlimited DoF to be honest. Diliff (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Julian H.✈ 09:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 09:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've been wowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I resized to .75 and check details, all was there. No need to such huge file, unless will be banner for the crusade. Look at that simple bird above, equals to 67 of those kind of photos. Now if all will start this, we will be soon limited with space. --Mile (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if you were joking or serious, but the file size/resolution is useful. There's 100% detail in every pixel in focus. Downsizing the image will remove detail from the image. Maybe you don't mind to lose detail, and that's fine, but the highest resolution image should be maintained because we don't know how this image could be used in the future. Also, nobody is saying that just because I took a high resolution image that everyone else should now follow. Diliff (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia mostly, maybe. But what if in 50 years time, someone makes a documentary about churches and wants to show what the church looked in 2015 like on their 20k wall-sized TV? This image would be freely licensed and there would probably be nothing else in the world as good as it. We can't always imagine how these images could be used in the future. Limiting them just because it takes too long to download is quite short-sighted. Diliff (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're talking about the future, you should think in upload your RAWs files to commonsarchive in 50 years time (2055) and taking a positive view of humanity is not yet self-destructed, when we leave this world, these images RAWs be there, and perhaps a new technology could get them capture sounds. --The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each panorama I take would be 1.5gb to 2gb of RAW files.... That would take 4 hours to upload with my broadband... It's not really worth it, I think. Maybe when my internet is faster. ;-) Diliff (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you place it in a in the cloud (could be dropbox also with a password that you can give me), I would handle it up requesting a mass upload. I recommend not to save RAWs on the hard drive, three years ago I lost 500 GB of RAWs in this way, a hard disk is damaged (Samsung HD). I spent some months depressed because they are pictures that will never return. Something similar happened to Poco a poco with his stolen camera. --The Photographer (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still uploading all my files. I have more than 3 terabytes of RAW files at the moment. That would take about 4 months if I left my computer uploading 24/7 every single day and it would affect the speed of everything else too. And no service would let me store that many files without charging me a lot of money Cloud backup of that many files isn't practical. I'm actually in the process of building a RAID NAS server to backup my data. Last year, I had a hard drive crash and I lost every photo I took from 2001 to 2009 too, so I know what it's like. Diliff (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 terabytes of RAW files at the moment" => You dont need upload all this, just this file for begin.
  • "no service would let me store that many files without charging me a lot of money" => commons archive is free!!!
  • "I'm actually in the process of building a RAID NAS" => With fifth the price of that, you could pay a gigabit connection only a month to raise all that in commons archive.
I hope you never matter what happened to me, however, I more never in my life will spend money buying any hard disk. Just imagine that today a problem of light damage your hard drive, just think about it for a second --The Photographer (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already did experience what happened to you, as I said above... But you can have a reliable backup with hard drives. You just need to have more than one copy, that's all That's what the NAS is for. Yes, maybe I could upload just the RAW files but to send a real back up of all my DSLR RAW files to the cloud, it would definitely take 4 months with my current ADSL2+. I couldn't get a gigabit connection for only a month, I would need to sign a contract for at least 12 months because nobody (at least in the UK) will set up a new internet connection for just one month. Also, no residential broadband company evens offers 1gbit internet in the UK! the fastest residential broadband is only 150mbit and I'm pretty sure business fibre broadband is actually going to be a lot more expensive than 1/5th of the cost of a NAS even for just the installation, not to mention the monthly costs. Also, the RAID NAS would have other purposes, not just a backup. And Commons Archive only lets you upload source files for images on Commons, but not all my RAW files are for Commons images. I can't be bothered to figure out which RAW files are used for images on Commons and which are not. It would take days and days to do that. It's just not worth it. A NAS is much simpler. All files are backed up and accessible to me in seconds if I have a hard drive failure. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is not just for Wikipedia. It is rather naive to assume the only way to look at such a large image is at 100% in a web browser, or printed on some huge canvas. Sadly the Zoom Browser seems to be broken more than it is working these days, but such interactive viewers are really the best way to explore and appreciate an image such as this. Hopefully soon, Wikimedia will support 360-degree panorama viewers, which are an engaging and natural way to study such a large 3D space. Knowing that Diliff's panoramas are already downsized, I simply don't believe that a further 75% reduction can be made without significant loss of fine detail. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 11:05, 19 June 2015 (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:All_Saints_Margaret_Street_Interior_2,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=163719248"