Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 11-12 HDR.JPG

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 23:39:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Peter's church, Teruel, Spain
  •  Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by MarcoAurelio -- M\A 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This picture is the winner of WLM in Spain 2014. Poco2 10:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- M\A 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks again MarcoAurelio! Poco2 10:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This picture is no necessarily strongly distorted, and does not fit, IMO, the FP standards, as it is frequently the case, I'm afraid, of a lot of winners of WLM. And it is a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I see it, Poco has traded tilted vertical lines in order to reduce perspective distortion. If Poco had used an architectural perspective, the distortion would have been greater. I still prefer to perserve straight vertical lines, but in wide views such as this, it is unavoidable to get some kind of distortion and the distortion is perhaps no worse than mine. I guess the difference between this image and my stitched images is that I can retain more sharpness and resolution so the distortion does not affect the quality as much. With a single frame, it is not so easy. Diliff (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The "standard" rectilinear view is an FP Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 10.JPG. This one is closer and sharper with more detail and better handling of the lighting. The ultra-wide rectilinear has its own distortions. And File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 16-17 HDR.JPG is seriously bendy! The converging verticals draw the eye to the apex and make one feel small, looking up. This is a valid perspective choice, rather than a technical error. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both this and the second image you cited are standard rectilinear though. As far as I can see, the only difference is the position and tilt of the camera. The angle of view seems the same although unlike the other image, the shutter speed, aperture and focal length have been removed from the EXIF data of the file so I can't be sure. Diliff (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added more information, also the camera settings (ISO 100, 17 mm f/11 2,5s and 8s). One thing, though, I haven't removed anything. As I've explained here and there I have a problem with the EXIF info update module of my enfusion SW that I used for (pseudo-) HDRs. I don't aim to hide any information, the other way around. Poco2 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Regarding the observations of Diliff and Colin I pretty much agree with them. In this picture I got "in the middle of the thing" and the result of a 17mm lens is what you see. I could make a version where verticals are vertical but, apart from the fact that I'd lose half of the picture, the result wouldn't be what I was looking for: "transporting" the viewer into the picture. One of the constraints of the picture when I took it was to be careful with the crop at the top (specially the middle top). David, I think that you'd have a worse time even in Spain to take pictures of churches with a tripod 15 minutes long than in France. I negotiated it (hard) after explaining what the picture was for and got inside 5 minutes before everybody else did in the afternoon allowance. Sometimes I do really miss a kind of acreditation for Wikimedia, that would ease my life. Poco2 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't mean that you were deliberately hiding the EXIF data, just that it is missing. It's frustrating that they are so restrictive about photography. There are many locations in England that I would love to be able to photograph but getting permission is hard. I've written to many organisations asking for permission but of course I'm not officially representing Wikimedia, so I'm not usually given any special allowances. Really, the only notable example so far who has given me permission is St Paul's Cathedral. That was a big success though, because photography is usually completely forbidden and there are not many high quality photos of the interior anywhere on the internet. I was given a whole hour but it wasn't really enough. I wish I had another chance because now with my 50mm lens and a bit more experience shooting church interiors, I would have been able to take better photos, but I'm happy with what I managed to take under some time pressure. I have managed to get permission to photograph the interiors of the Bodleian Library in Oxford (again, photography is usually strictly forbidden) and I will be visiting in early January in the morning before it opens to the University. Lighting and time will be very limited, so I'm not sure what results I'll get, but we will see. I agree though, it would be great to get accreditation or for Wikimedia to be able to negotiate on our behalf somehow. Diliff (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diliff by "standard" I meant "looking straight ahead", as well as the choice of projection. 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, but also (since it is a flat fixed 2D view) has attributes one wouldn't see. Not everything unnatural that is due to a lens is a "fault". For example, with shooting a photo with shallow depth of field -- something the eye never sees. So is background blur a distortion just because it isn't how we perceive the world in person? And bokeh highlights are merely a lens artifact. The viewer isn't mislead here. Architectural perspective is not the only one. My 2p. -- Colin (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah ok, I agree, the tilt is good for the composition in this case (although the altar isn't exactly centred so the symmetry is an issue). Just as we don't see a shallow depth of field with our own eyes, we also don't see vertical lines leaning inward as a camera does so I agree there also. We would if our retina extended across our whole field of view, but it doesn't, so we move our eyes to re-centre the view and the vertical line straightens when it is centred. However, I think that is a good argument for why we should (if we can) try to preserve the vertical lines - it better matches what our eyes see. I admit that it isn't possible to do so in this image without introducing fairly significant distortion elsewhere. So yes, in short, I agree that it isn't a rule for all cases, just a guideline that works in most non-extreme cases. Diliff (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, although as mentioned above, it isn't entirely symmetrical. Could benefit from a slight crop to the right hand side. Diliff (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Diliff: True, I didn't notice that asymmetry. I applied a slight crop on the right. Poco2 14:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it managed to win WLM Spain, so I guess nobody else noticed either. ;-) Diliff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--DXR (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro,_Teruel,_España,_2014-01-10,_DD_11-12_HDR.JPG&oldid=143760181"