Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cañón Miles, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-26, DD 144-154 PAN.jpg

File:Cañón Miles, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-26, DD 144-154 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 13:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the volcanic basalt formations in Miles Canyon along the Yukon River, not far from Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. Poc o² 13:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cylindrical projection introduces too much misleading distortion here. I thought this might be some significant meander in the river where it turns through 180° but Google Maps shows this section of the river is straight. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a panorama, not a frame, there is no way that you can look at what is shown in the image from this viewpoint at once, you need to move your head from left to right, and the image here shows what you would view when panning your head. My intention was to show the volcanic basalts and for that I needed to stand there where I was, otherwise they would be hidden by the closer side of the river. There is no other type of projection that would work here, you suggest a rectilinear projection? as said, for that I would have had to be futher back and a portion of the basalts would be hidden. I like the way it looks, but if this kind of perspective is not welcome here I see definitely no point in uploading about 50 more such panos from Alaska and Yukon. Poc o² 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is difficult to represent a wide scope of view in a 2D frame. We've all had plenty discussion about projections, particularly with Diliff's cathedrals. I know you can't do this wide angle in rectilinear. We do now have nominations with 360° projections that can use a special viewer, and I think for some subjects that's a really immersive way of looking at a view. They way it looks here is too much like one of these -- someone unfamiliar with the scene/location would be mislead. Whereas some of our more extreme projections are obviously distorted (curved buildings, etc) so the viewer isn't fooled (e.g. File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpg). Two other examples of mine are File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - SouthEast.jpg -- a regular projection -- and File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Panorama.jpg -- a cylindrical projection that I think is pretty awful. The cylindrical projection only shows a very little more of the subject but is unacceptably distorted. The closer you are to the subject (e.g. the river or the road) the worse the distortion. -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the viewer could get it wrong, but I still don't see it as a big problem. Falling lines, fish eyes, extreme perspectives, they all may decieve the viewer, but that's iMHO not a reason to exclude them. This FP of mine is exactly the same view (road instead of river), became FP 2 weeks ago and is IMO not as interesting as this one. Poc o² 23:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps most viewers of that other photo thought you were standing at a crossroads, or perhaps didn't care that some random piece of road in a desert was distorted. Here you have taken a photo of a "wow" bend in the river that should attract photographers like flies, except it isn't. It's an illusion. Many of the extremely wide panoramas we have are taken on mountain tops, where most of the subject is distant. For example: File:Panoramic view north from Ben Lomond.jpg. These photos have the effect of taking around 180° and compressing it to around 90°. If the close features are minor and insignificant, like the Ben Lomond photo, then it isn't so disturbing. But when the distorted features are actually the subject, then there's a problem. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this right? You only want to upload photos here on Commons if they can become FPs? Or you only see FPs as useful to the project? Both sounds really bad to my ears. --Cart (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've become the most productive user in the project in terms of quality and fetured content, that's not just by chance like this. I've spent a great deal of time and money to get there. So, I don't think that anybody here can demand that I upload anything more. The other way around, I think that I've the liberty to decide what I upload and what I don't and I expect other users to respect that. Poc o² 23:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I stand corrected. --Cart (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I normally don't have any problems with these distorted 180 deg panoramas, but for some reason this much bending of a straight river bothers me a bit. That is why I added the location to the file, so that each viewer could see it and form their own opinion. I won't go as far as to oppose this, since this might just be me being square. --Cart (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will support this nomination if you state in the file description by about how many degrees you've bent the straight river in this projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess, since there is riverbank on each side, is around 180° made to look like 90°. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable, but it's important for the file description to say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan:

Done Poc o² 08:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps you should say the actual appearance of the riverbank is straight, but maybe the number of degrees by itself are clear enough for most readers. To me, the number of degrees of the panorama is not the same as the number of degrees that the river is bent, but maybe I'm just confused. I do like the photo, though, and I think this kind of distortion is legitimate when it's clearly described. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan: I added an additional note to make that more clear. Poc o² 08:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent note, thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's pretty clear from looking at it that it's a panoramic; we have already promoted plenty that showed obviously straight roads bent this way. To me this may have been the only way to show the whole canyon. I could wish for a softer highlight on the cloud above the bridge, maybe, but I'm OK with it as is. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a panorama so it's obvious that the picture is distorted. This photo is good technically and very picturesque. FP for me. Tournasol7 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others -- Suisant7 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural