Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)- Support - Of course. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Surely. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 17:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. --Code (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors. I suppose you didnt want to chop that part of glass cupola on top. --Mile (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support w・o・w --Laitche (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Delicious. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Unnatural looking top dome. While the picture is almost perfect to a fault, as Jebulon pointed out on a similar picture, the columns become oval, and I wonder just how many distortions there are that make the image not truly representative of the real scene. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)- Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Tomas that the angle of view is too extreme here. On other images, one might "get away with it" but the dome just looks like it is angled at 45-degrees rather than straight down. And the magnification at the left/right edges is large. I've suggested a crop that I would support, which minimises the distortions. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but why is this distortion a problem here and not a problem in a fisheye image? Both have distortions owing to the extreme angle of view, but fisheye is a legitimate projection and this is not? Diliff (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you asking me? You already know the literature on wide-angle perspective issues since Leonardo da Vinci and others documented them and tried to limit them. This is a straight documentary image of the interior rather than an artistic perspective that revels in its distortions. It is clear in a fisheye image that the view is not straightforward, and nobody is under any illusion that the curves are real. Here, it is disturbing to see the angle of that dome. The degree to which one can accept such distortions depends on the features in the scene and on the individual viewer. Consider a photo taken at an extreme angle may (or may not) succeed at an artistic level, but a photo with just a slight tilt just looks like a mistake. This isn't the first time I've opposed where a circular ceiling or wall feature gets distorted too much for comfort. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it than others, but to me this is easily solvable by a more modest angle of view (as suggested on the image page). -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I already have my own opinions on distortion and I believe the distortion is reasonable here, so I'm asking you why you support your own image with a greater vertical angle of view but not this one. You mention the way the dome looks, but what of the top and bottom of the escalators? You're viewing them at a near 90 degree angle, but that's not a problem because you declared it to be artistic rather than documentary? ;-) It's no more or less a problem than the dome IMO. It's an inherent feature of the vertical angle of view and the projection. You say it is a "straight documentary image" of the interior, but what if it's not? What if you re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style? I think you draw an overly sharp line between 'creative fisheye projection' and 'documentary rectilinear'. I think the truth is, particularly with the freedom of stitched images and complex projections, that there is no delineation - it is a continuum from straight-edged 'normal' perspective to the weird and wild projections of your imagination. As for the crop, I'm not really interested in cropping it to be honest, I like the view as wide as this and I think there are too many compromises in the composition with your suggested crop, so I'll let the chips fall where they may. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Continuum fallacy. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Responding to a detailed discussion featuring a number of points with a single link to an article that doesn't really relate to the discussion is rude. You could at least follow up to explain why you think the 'continuum fallacy' relates to my point. I don't think it does though - I think there clearly is a continuum. At what point does rectilinear become fisheye? At what point does rectilinear's angle of view become 'ugly' or 'wrong' as it increases? There are no precise answers to these questions, because it's a matter of opinion. Leonardo might have had his opinions on matters, but he was musing over aesthetics, not absolute truth. You know very well that it is a mathematical continuum between projections, so I really don't know why you call it a fallacy. You might look at an individual image and declare that you don't like the distortion in it and that's fair enough, but it's not so easy to say that you know where the line is drawn. The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable. In fact I'm sure it is, because you've supported many images with similar levels of distortion before. I'm not trying to change your mind about your vote, just pointing out things as I see them. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I really wasn't intending to be rude. In fact, I assumed you could read the article and slap yourself on the forehead without me trying to explain. I proposed two (with fuzzy definitions) styles of photography: the artistic where distortions may be accepted and even enjoyed, and the documentary where distortions are kept to a minimum. You suggested I "draw an overly sharp line" while saying there is in fact a continuum. But I never said these groups had a "sharp line" or "delineation", only that they are distinct. I point out, using the fallacy article, that one does not need to (and I did not) define any hard line between two groups and the fact that there is a continuum does not prevent it being possible to place things into distinct groups. Read the lead paragraphs of the article -- there doesn't seem much point in me repeating them. Given your statement "The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable." I'm now at a loss as to why you are arguing or questioning my vote at all.
- It may be possible to place things into distinct groups, but there are situations where categorising things as one or the other does a disservice to it. That's why I said you draw an overly sharp line. You defined this image as documentary rectilinear, and I disagreed, pointing out that it is more truthfully somewhere on the continuum, and you responded simply by telling me (in a roundabout way) that it was a fallacy to argue that. The continuum fallacy, according to the article "appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all)". But that's not what I implied at all. Obviously if you compare two images (fisheye and non-wide rectlinear) in isolation, it's clear that they are very different in purpose and in perspective and are thoroughly distinct. But my wide angle rectilinear images start to blur the lines between the two definitions, and that's what I was trying to point out. I often (and did so in this image) use some compression of the perspective in order to minimise distortion at the extremes, and that sometimes has the effect of compressing objects. The dome is an example of that. It looks to be taken at a 45 degree angle by its position in the image but has the perspective of something a bit greater than that. So I would argue that although my image does a good job of being a documentary photograph (verticals are straight and vertical), it is not a simple rectilinear image and should not be categorised as such. It straddles the line between fisheye and rectilinear in its angle of view and treatment of the extremes. It has the wide angle of view of fisheye but the perspective and straight lines of rectilinear. Obviously it has the compromises inherent in any fusion of perspectives, but it is part of that continuum. That's why I suggested you "re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style". Diliff (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't actually say there were only two styles of photography here ("one or the other") and never argued there was a sharp line between them. You are reading things into what I said. I agree your image falls in between the two categories, and that it why it does not work, for me. It fails to be a successful documentary image since the dome appears to be at a very strange 45-degree angle and the sides are hugely out of proportion. And it fails to be a successful artistically distorted image since too much of it is perfectly straight. Like Nick Clegg trying to tell a joke. I do like, and support, many of your very-wide-angle photographs. I just think that the aspects of the scene here mean you can't get away with it and the flaws are too disturbing. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I never said you argued there was only two styles of photography or a sharp line between them either, it was simply my observation of the way you judged the image by pigeon-holing it as a documentary photograph. I think you still have a narrow sense of what is 'artistic' if you think that its straight lines makes it ineligible though. :-) But ok, fair enough. I won't keep this going unnecessarily. Diliff (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well on the first sentence, I just have to 100% disagree and lose patience. As for my narrow sense of "artistic", you never asked me for a definition of this, nor have I given one. You cannot possibly work out my sense of that from the bare examples we have been discussing. You are confusing examples with definitions I think. As I said at the start, why are you asking me? If you want to know then that requires a different approach. If it is just to have an argument, then I'm not really interested and have better things to do, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I never said you argued there was only two styles of photography or a sharp line between them either, it was simply my observation of the way you judged the image by pigeon-holing it as a documentary photograph. I think you still have a narrow sense of what is 'artistic' if you think that its straight lines makes it ineligible though. :-) But ok, fair enough. I won't keep this going unnecessarily. Diliff (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't actually say there were only two styles of photography here ("one or the other") and never argued there was a sharp line between them. You are reading things into what I said. I agree your image falls in between the two categories, and that it why it does not work, for me. It fails to be a successful documentary image since the dome appears to be at a very strange 45-degree angle and the sides are hugely out of proportion. And it fails to be a successful artistically distorted image since too much of it is perfectly straight. Like Nick Clegg trying to tell a joke. I do like, and support, many of your very-wide-angle photographs. I just think that the aspects of the scene here mean you can't get away with it and the flaws are too disturbing. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may be possible to place things into distinct groups, but there are situations where categorising things as one or the other does a disservice to it. That's why I said you draw an overly sharp line. You defined this image as documentary rectilinear, and I disagreed, pointing out that it is more truthfully somewhere on the continuum, and you responded simply by telling me (in a roundabout way) that it was a fallacy to argue that. The continuum fallacy, according to the article "appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all)". But that's not what I implied at all. Obviously if you compare two images (fisheye and non-wide rectlinear) in isolation, it's clear that they are very different in purpose and in perspective and are thoroughly distinct. But my wide angle rectilinear images start to blur the lines between the two definitions, and that's what I was trying to point out. I often (and did so in this image) use some compression of the perspective in order to minimise distortion at the extremes, and that sometimes has the effect of compressing objects. The dome is an example of that. It looks to be taken at a 45 degree angle by its position in the image but has the perspective of something a bit greater than that. So I would argue that although my image does a good job of being a documentary photograph (verticals are straight and vertical), it is not a simple rectilinear image and should not be categorised as such. It straddles the line between fisheye and rectilinear in its angle of view and treatment of the extremes. It has the wide angle of view of fisheye but the perspective and straight lines of rectilinear. Obviously it has the compromises inherent in any fusion of perspectives, but it is part of that continuum. That's why I suggested you "re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style". Diliff (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- The best explanation to your question is that the overall precision and accuracy of much of the image sets up expectations in the viewer that it is a thoroughly accurate representation of the scene. Those expectations are damaged when one examines the near dome or the extreme left and right, where angles or proportions are just completely wrong. One is left considering if it is instead an optical illusion or joke architecture rather than a very straightforward interior and a documentary photograph. With a fisheye lens, the viewer (at least one familiar with such images, as most of us are) has fewer expectations. The same with my tilted photo example. If very titled, one knows it must have been taken at an angle for some effect. If only slightly tilted, one wonders if the surface is sloping or if the camera was level and isn't really sure. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Expectations and assumptions are a dangerous thing and the cause of many a disagreement on Commons, and you've been the recipient of perhaps unfair expectations too (B&W photography). What one is left wondering is up to that individual - not necessarily my problem. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I really wasn't intending to be rude. In fact, I assumed you could read the article and slap yourself on the forehead without me trying to explain. I proposed two (with fuzzy definitions) styles of photography: the artistic where distortions may be accepted and even enjoyed, and the documentary where distortions are kept to a minimum. You suggested I "draw an overly sharp line" while saying there is in fact a continuum. But I never said these groups had a "sharp line" or "delineation", only that they are distinct. I point out, using the fallacy article, that one does not need to (and I did not) define any hard line between two groups and the fact that there is a continuum does not prevent it being possible to place things into distinct groups. Read the lead paragraphs of the article -- there doesn't seem much point in me repeating them. Given your statement "The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable." I'm now at a loss as to why you are arguing or questioning my vote at all.
- Responding to a detailed discussion featuring a number of points with a single link to an article that doesn't really relate to the discussion is rude. You could at least follow up to explain why you think the 'continuum fallacy' relates to my point. I don't think it does though - I think there clearly is a continuum. At what point does rectilinear become fisheye? At what point does rectilinear's angle of view become 'ugly' or 'wrong' as it increases? There are no precise answers to these questions, because it's a matter of opinion. Leonardo might have had his opinions on matters, but he was musing over aesthetics, not absolute truth. You know very well that it is a mathematical continuum between projections, so I really don't know why you call it a fallacy. You might look at an individual image and declare that you don't like the distortion in it and that's fair enough, but it's not so easy to say that you know where the line is drawn. The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable. In fact I'm sure it is, because you've supported many images with similar levels of distortion before. I'm not trying to change your mind about your vote, just pointing out things as I see them. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Continuum fallacy. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I already have my own opinions on distortion and I believe the distortion is reasonable here, so I'm asking you why you support your own image with a greater vertical angle of view but not this one. You mention the way the dome looks, but what of the top and bottom of the escalators? You're viewing them at a near 90 degree angle, but that's not a problem because you declared it to be artistic rather than documentary? ;-) It's no more or less a problem than the dome IMO. It's an inherent feature of the vertical angle of view and the projection. You say it is a "straight documentary image" of the interior, but what if it's not? What if you re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style? I think you draw an overly sharp line between 'creative fisheye projection' and 'documentary rectilinear'. I think the truth is, particularly with the freedom of stitched images and complex projections, that there is no delineation - it is a continuum from straight-edged 'normal' perspective to the weird and wild projections of your imagination. As for the crop, I'm not really interested in cropping it to be honest, I like the view as wide as this and I think there are too many compromises in the composition with your suggested crop, so I'll let the chips fall where they may. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you asking me? You already know the literature on wide-angle perspective issues since Leonardo da Vinci and others documented them and tried to limit them. This is a straight documentary image of the interior rather than an artistic perspective that revels in its distortions. It is clear in a fisheye image that the view is not straightforward, and nobody is under any illusion that the curves are real. Here, it is disturbing to see the angle of that dome. The degree to which one can accept such distortions depends on the features in the scene and on the individual viewer. Consider a photo taken at an extreme angle may (or may not) succeed at an artistic level, but a photo with just a slight tilt just looks like a mistake. This isn't the first time I've opposed where a circular ceiling or wall feature gets distorted too much for comfort. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it than others, but to me this is easily solvable by a more modest angle of view (as suggested on the image page). -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but why is this distortion a problem here and not a problem in a fisheye image? Both have distortions owing to the extreme angle of view, but fisheye is a legitimate projection and this is not? Diliff (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Unreal, very distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great, a pity that the dome is cropped Poco2 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Distortion made by wide angle views can be a problem - here it isn't. The parts that are distorted aren't in the main view axis so the image impression is what here counts for me and this is very good. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
