Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)- Support and again: stunning quality. And no: A perspective correction does not seem necessary, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was going to mention that perspective correction does not work well on this image - the angle of view is already very high, so correcting the verticals would warp the top corners too much. Already they are at the limit of what I would consider acceptable. Diliff (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support I feel uplifted just looking at it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Viscontino (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support I wonder what happened to the lights? I'm not sure I like it but it's surely FP anyhow--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- What happened? The lights were just extremely bright and with a stopped down lens, you often get those star patterns around the light sources. I used an aperture of f/13 so that the whole scene would be in focus. It's quite unavoidable. It could be minimised by using a wide open aperture, but then the image quality would be much worse so it is a sacrifice worth making. I don't mind the effect though. Diliff (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose to prevent speedy promotion. Very good as always, but I prefer File:Exeter College Chapel & Lectern, Oxford - Diliff.jpg. Would you mind adding it as an alt? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)- Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective distortion is not accepted neither QI nor VI. It's weird that we can make in FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- To say that no uncorrected perspective distortion should ever be QI, VI or FP is very narrow minded. I'm usually the first to correct it where it's appropriate to do so, but I don't think it is here. Some images have such a large angle of view that perspective correction is not appropriate. In the case of this image, one consequence would be much greater distortion in the stained glass on the sides. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no excuse for any perspective "distortion" with Photoshop CC. See Photoshop CC Warp Perspective and follow the example at the bottom :-) -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- To say that no uncorrected perspective distortion should ever be QI, VI or FP is very narrow minded. I'm usually the first to correct it where it's appropriate to do so, but I don't think it is here. Some images have such a large angle of view that perspective correction is not appropriate. In the case of this image, one consequence would be much greater distortion in the stained glass on the sides. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Archaeo.--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
