Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

University Church of St Mary's
discussion not related to the photo
  •  Very big strong support Congratulations @Diliff: Go on taking more good photos (like you always do). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Diliff, I tried a vertical adjust, and you can tilt a little bit anticlockwise, and this blue looks to me over saturated. ArionEstar if you do want to vote for the photo, do it, otherwise do not use your vote just to poke another volunteer. -- RTA 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's any tilt in this image. I've double checked all the verticals and they seem correct to me. There are one or two verticals on the left wall that are leaning a tiny amount but I can't trust them because other verticals on the same wall are straight. These walls are very old so it most likely that they are actually leaning in reality. The church itself has no significant lean at all. If anything, it is perhaps half a degree leaning counter-clockwise which is the oppose of what you're suggesting, but really... half a degree is imperceptible. It is only possible to see it when you measure it. As for the blues, I'm not sure. Blue hour = very blue. I think it looks normal. I'd rather wait to see what other people think before I adjust the saturation. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff, "a little bit anticlockwise" ~ "half a degree leaning counter-clockwise" --*. And I'm saying that are too saturated based in the blue hitting the left tower, open it at the Lightroom and reduce by 10 the blue (further, as -20, seems more "natural", however not much blue hour), anyway Diliff, just trying to help, see ya... -- RTA 03:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS:I was expecting ArionEstar to do a proper vote instead the provocative one, that's why I did not brought out the vote...
  •  Support Love that you even got the ghosts that haunt the street beyond the church on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Just the right time. — Julian H.✈ 08:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not the best of Diliff in my opinion. Although the mood is nice the composition is somehow unbalanced, owing to the geometrically-distorted building at left. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what is so geometrically distorted about the building on the left. It's compressed because you are looking along the face of it, but there's not much perspective distortion. The angle of view is actually not as large as many of my interiors, it's about 65 degrees horizontal by 80 vertical, which is fairly close to what you would see with a regular wide angle 24mm lens (unlike my interiors which are more like 10mm). So yes, it's wide, but not that wide that that distortion is really off-putting, IMO. Diliff (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My guess is that Joaquim talks about the leftmost tower. While I do agree with you generally speaking (I'm often faced that situation where I have to explain or justify distortion), I don't think it's that simple as to say "vertical FOV is 80°, so it's not so distorted". It's perspective corrected, so it's much like your lens points toward something at viewer level, say the people in the distance. In that case, it takes more than 80° to fit the whole leftmost tower into the frame. How much more ? I'm not a math guy... :) - Benh (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually you've made an assumption, which would normally be correct, but in this case, I had already made allowances for the perspective correction in my calculations. Yes, it's perspective corrected but when I gave the angle of view and equivalent focal length, I had already factored in the perspective correction. See this screen capture which shows what I mean. Obvously, ignore the exposure issues - this is a bracketed image and PTGui previews with the brightest exposure. As you can see, the total vertical angle of view including the area that wasn't captured (which keeps the centre-point at eye level, as you say) is 90 degrees. So actually I was wrong about it being 80, it's 90 which is more like a 17mm lens rather than 20mm. But because PTgui calculates the AOV with the assumption that there is as much space below as there is above the centre point (which you usually crop if you don't want too much foreground), you can consider it like this:
          1. The vertical angle of view is 90 degrees which is the equivalent of 17mm lens - with no perspective correction, or
          2. The vertical angle of view is about 50-55 degrees (half of 90 degrees plus some foreground below the horizon) which is the equivalent of 24mm lens - with perspective correction applied.
Hopefully you're following, I think you've done enough panoramic stitching of your own to know what I mean. Anyway, my point was just that this is within normal bounds of wide angle photography, there's nothing extreme about the distortion even with the perspective correction. I guess in the end this is just academic, but if you need to go 'wide' for compositional reasons or because of physical limitations preventing you from getting further back, you have no choice but to accept perspective distortion. I still believe it's not that significant compared to a lot of other architectural photography, both interior and exterior. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I feel somehow relieved to see your numbers. And you're right, if my assumptions had been right, the "perspective corrected" equiv vertical FOV would have been something closer to 130°, which should have materialized into much more ugly "stretched" shapes. - Benh (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:St_Mary%27s_Church,_Radcliffe_Sq,_Oxford,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=154532805"