Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-120034.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 22:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • I'm not really sure how one could take a picture of this church without having the city in the background, but maybe your point is you don't think the motif is feature-worthy, in which case fair enough Cmao20 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Not the best perspective and lighting angle. The building is flat so the architectural features aren't clear and we don't know how deep they are. The bottom crop is tight, giving little context for its location. While many of our architectural photos with this perspective and short distance-to-subject suffer from being taken on the ground, this one has the opposite problem, of being taken nearly level with the clock. The ideal height to minimise perspective distortion would be half-way up, though that might cause trees and other low buildings to cover the bottom a bit.
File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-115941.jpg is a far superior aerial photo in every way. The angle demonstrates the features of the building, and shade highlights form. We can see how broad the building is and how deep features such as windows are. Despite being taken even higher up, it is further back, so the proportions of the tower don't appear distorted. We get a much better idea of its location in the town. All this compensate, imo, for the subject being a little smaller. In an aerial photo, you have much more freedom of viewpoint and fewer obstacles hiding the subject, so I think you should step away from front elevation view and pick the angled perspective view. While the former is great for builders working to a plan, it is the latter that architects use to show off to the client how their buildings look. There's a reason why. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

edit
 
@Famberhorst: who was missed out of the above list. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, but I have done the same once before and not got in trouble for it (actually on your suggestion  ) here. Thanks for pinging Famberhorst. Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: While the rule may say that in theory, I think the rule in practice (and what is more in line with the spirit of having alts) is: "Alternatives are for images which are sufficiently similar to the original nomination that it is inconceivable that both could be promoted FP." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we have FPs of the same subject from different angles (I'm not saying that's good, just that it happens) so I don't think this fits your "in practice" rule. But the place to discuss changing what the rules actually say is the FPC talk page. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bamberg_Ottokirche_Luftbild-20211031-RM-120034.jpg&oldid=638395170"