Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Vienna from St. Othmar - Westwestnorth to Southeast.jpg
File:Panorama Vienna from St. Othmar - Westwestnorth to Southeast.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2014 at 20:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Hubertl-- Hubertl (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Not wow for me, just a panorama, sorry -- Jiel (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)- Oppose. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough of the buildings. In panoramas like this, it's usually a good idea to use the rule of thirds and keep 1/3 sky and 2/3 ground. Diliff (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Der Boden gibt nicht mehr her und ein abschneiden vom Himmel würde das Panorama sehr schmal machen. Für mich ein fehlerfreies, gut belichtetes und sehr informatives Bild. --Böhringer (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting a crop of the sky to fix the compositional issue, I was suggesting that more buildings should have been captured. There is about 60% sky and 40% ground in this image. Diliff (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions, I´am really thankfully about it! The f/1.4 50mm may have been the better choice, not the 70-200. It was extremely difficult, I just had 50cm space to handle this, I did´nt even had space to look through the viewfinder or monitor. This shall not be an excuse, it just was a unique opportunity for me. I had no chance to make a 2nd row. Not with this pano-head. --Hubertl (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I took a very similar panorama in Riga last month using two rows and a 50mm lens, so I'm familiar with panoramas such as this. You shouldn't need to use a panoramic head in this instance though, because parallax errors would be minimal as the buildings are very far away. In fact, I took my panorama hand-held. Not only that, because the bell tower in the church is hexagonal (or maybe octagonal, I forget), I took different photos from different locations inside the bell tower. As the camera direction rotated around 360 degrees, I actually moved my location inside the tower to suit this (mostly so that when looking down, I would not see the edge of the tower in the frame). I would guess that the camera location rotated around a 3-4 metre diameter, and still there are no significant parallax errors. So I think it would have been better to shoot this image hand-held, and then you could more easily shoot a second row. Diliff (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am convinced to withdraw the nomination at this point, but I have learned so much through your comments that I do not want to miss even some other opinions. And when I withdraw, then without regret. I have so many shutter actuations more.--Hubertl (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I took a very similar panorama in Riga last month using two rows and a 50mm lens, so I'm familiar with panoramas such as this. You shouldn't need to use a panoramic head in this instance though, because parallax errors would be minimal as the buildings are very far away. In fact, I took my panorama hand-held. Not only that, because the bell tower in the church is hexagonal (or maybe octagonal, I forget), I took different photos from different locations inside the bell tower. As the camera direction rotated around 360 degrees, I actually moved my location inside the tower to suit this (mostly so that when looking down, I would not see the edge of the tower in the frame). I would guess that the camera location rotated around a 3-4 metre diameter, and still there are no significant parallax errors. So I think it would have been better to shoot this image hand-held, and then you could more easily shoot a second row. Diliff (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions, I´am really thankfully about it! The f/1.4 50mm may have been the better choice, not the 70-200. It was extremely difficult, I just had 50cm space to handle this, I did´nt even had space to look through the viewfinder or monitor. This shall not be an excuse, it just was a unique opportunity for me. I had no chance to make a 2nd row. Not with this pano-head. --Hubertl (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting a crop of the sky to fix the compositional issue, I was suggesting that more buildings should have been captured. There is about 60% sky and 40% ground in this image. Diliff (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Great, very good. The format allows to explore the landscape in detail, and despite the occupation is beautiful. I like the sky, and its proportion in the picture (shame on me, Diliff). I marked
twopointson photo, one correctionand a question. The left bottom corner is a disturbing point, but negligible in this large format. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (whopps later sig, sry)- Lauro (you forgot to sign your comments?), I did some detective work and the building that you added a note about does indeed look like that. It's not a stitching problem. Diliff (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Diliff sorry I forgot, I'm pretty distracted, I thought it was not a stitching mistake (is apparently not on the stitch line), but as the wall seemed misplaced I decided to ask. Thanks for clearing my curiosity, good detective work. I remove the question point note : ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Lauro (you forgot to sign your comments?), I did some detective work and the building that you added a note about does indeed look like that. It's not a stitching problem. Diliff (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
weak Oppose – not a bad panorama but a) per Diliff and b) there’s many, many small stitching errors. In nearly each horizontal line on the buildings I was looking at there were some. Not as bad as the annotated one but still clearly visible. Try to re-stitch with Hugin :-) --Kreuzschnabel 19:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)- Could you point out the stitching problems? I had a close look and I couldn't see a single stitching error. There are many minor issues in the image (quite a lot of noise in the shadow detail, a slight curve in the horizon, etc), but the stitching looks pretty good to me. Diliff (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have to apologize, apparently that has been produced by my image viewer when scrolling. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Could you point out the stitching problems? I had a close look and I couldn't see a single stitching error. There are many minor issues in the image (quite a lot of noise in the shadow detail, a slight curve in the horizon, etc), but the stitching looks pretty good to me. Diliff (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
