Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radkan Tower 2015-01-26.jpg

File:Radkan Tower 2015-01-26.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 14:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info created by Abazar javan - uploaded by Abazar javan - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It seems clouds are overexposed. --Gnosis (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand this comment, Gnosis. The lightest and darkest of the clouds are well within exposure. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual tower captured in good light. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, but there's something that's striking me a bit funny about the conic part. Are you seeing anything other than a bit of unsharpness, such as an excess of noise reduction or oversharpening in the upper part of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I can't see anything unusual there. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your checking that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice contrast and interesting building Wilfredor (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn’t a perspective correction be appropriate? Looking at other photos I get the impression that the tower is conical in reality (i.e., the walls are slightly inclined), but on this photo the posts of the fence are inclined, too. Therefore it seems the tower is not that conical in reality, and a perspective correction would be appropriate. Or do I miss something? No offence, I just want to understand this before voting. --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear to me from an image search whether the lower part is slanted or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Abazar javan, 4nn1l2, Amirpashaei, Gnosis or anyone else who might be able to address this question, please comment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lower part is not slanted in the real. the picture has perspective error.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Amirpashaei, 4nn1l2, and Colin: Thank you very much for your hints! --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Straightforward photo, but good nonetheless. Cmao20 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good architectural picture most give right information to the audiences. The picture has perspective error and this problem cause to mislead viewers about the Being conical or Being cylindrical of the lower part of tower.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amir, pending a perspective correction of the lower part. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aristeas, Ikan, Amir: Fence posts are not reliable judge of what is vertical, and may lean with the wind, ground subsidence, or simply lack of care when erecting or maintaining. See Category:Radkan Tower (Chenaran County) and Radkan Tower Chenaran (which has a photo gallery). I find this image particularly convincing as it does not appear to have been tilted upwards, and yet the tower sides slope. Other photos here. The artwork for this documentary shows tapering sides at the base. See also Alamy stock photos -- even ones where the camera seems to be pointing downward show tapering sides. We should not be surprised to find this building has tapering sides, for it is not designed as an office block in the 21st century. For example, classical columns have entasis - a bulge at the base. On the evidence I have seen, this tower base does taper, though we can argue about what degree. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links. I've seen contradictory evidence in my own image search. Some photos show the columns as vertical, others as tapered, but I would defer to people who've actually seen this tower in real life. For example, it would be nice if the nominator would address this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have never seen this tower with my own eyes. I searched a lot on the web, but could not find the answer of your question. And I have no access to libraries either due to COVID restrictions (all libraries are closed where I live). That being said, I found this picture and what Colin said pretty convincing. I think you should not take Amirpashaei's assertions for granted, unless he provides evidence for his claim. The last point I want to mention is that this image was one of the finalists of WLM Iran 2020 (see here) and considering his reactions to the final results and other contenders, I wouldn't trust him. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for an academic article which discusses the dimensions of the tower or its plan. Am I searching for the right thing? Or Maybe I should search for other images just like what Colin did. But how can one understand an image shows the reality or has perspective errors? Sorry for my novicity, as I am not a photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I'm confused. I'll just cross out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I abstain from voting for the same reason. Indeed this is a pretty photo! But in a straight architectural shot like this one I would expect verticals to be vertical. (This is not necessary, of course, in advanced shots with special perspectives.) If we cannot resolve this question amicably, I cannot evaluate the picture. --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nineteenth century photo suggests the tower was in a bad state and has been restored in modern times. Aristeas, one can only "expect verticals to be vertical" if they were in reality. See this YouTube video especially at 2 minutes in. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, I'm convinced, and based on that footage, this shape looks like it's probably pretty accurate. What's more, whatever the imperfections of the photo (mainly the unsharpness and maybe something else going on in parts of the upper part of the tower), this is a really striking, almost surreal-looking image of a seemingly incongruous work of architecture in the middle of a field, with a dramatic sky behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Colin, for your hint! My phrase “I would expect verticals to be vertical” was about verticals in general, not about the walls of the tower – I already understand that they are not completely vertical, but slightly inclined; see my first comment above. What I wanted to say has been put much better by Ivar and Basile below. While the tower columns are not completely vertical in reality, they are very probably not that slanted as this photo suggests. I refer to the fact that all fence posts are leaning in, and to the detailed discussion by Basile below. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imo the perspective distortion is there, because the fence posts on both sides are leaning towards the tower. However, that doesn't mean that the tower columns are completely vertical. --Ivar (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The perspective of this picture is clearly wrong because the fence is significantly falling upwards on both sides, left and right. Which means the verticals are not okay, unfortunately. Fixing them on Photoshop gives a very different aspect for this tower, and of course more vertical walls. To be honest, almost completely vertical. More clues suggesting the tower is almost straight vertical :

A model for tourists
Design drawings here or there found on Iranian architecture websites
View from above
View from a distance
"Cylinder building" as they say

Still, there might be a small angle suggested by the drawing at the left on this map (found here).

I would suggest to offer an alternative of this nomination with the fence vertical, giving a more realistic aspect to the tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The model and plans may not be accurate. One might make them straight for aesthetic reasons, but I don't think one would make them tapered needlessly. For example see this or p. 10 of this document.

Gonbad Qabus Tower is tapered according to Nightdevil (Iranian architect), but its plan has been drawn straight, most probably for aesthetic reasons. This example shows why we should not rely solely on plans and models created by students, businesspeople or the like. [By the way, this file is an obvious copyvio and should be deleted as soon as the discussion concludes.] File:پلان برج قابوس2.jpg shows the reality of Gonbad Qabus Tower more accurately. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But "Gonbad Qabus Tower" is not the same tower. Currently the picture displays a tilt of about 3,2 degrees at the left and 2,4 at the right, while the reality might be half of that. About 1,5 degrees on both sides, according to the technical documents above. After correcting the inclination of the fence on Photoshop, I find an angle for the tower of just 1,4 degree at the left, and 1,1 degree at the right. That makes sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they are different. I'm using an analogy. Gonbad Qabus is one tower, Radkan is another tower. This discussion is about Radkan. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images last section, "Distortions": leaning church 1,7 degrees before correction (very similar) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of the perspective issue. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. —kallerna (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

While the previous version had enough votes to be promoted (7 support votes), an alternative version is presented to address all imperfections, thanks to Basile Morin. Pinging all contributors @Gnosis, Colin, Ikan Kekek, Wilfredor, Johann Jaritz, and Aristeas: @Cmao20, Amirpashaei, Iifar, Daniel Case, and Kallerna: 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a reasonable adjustment. I know from creating stitched panoramas to intensely distrust fence posts and lamp posts. I'm glad this still shows the base and body to taper. I note that the view from above linked earlier in the discussion, has the opposite problem: the camera is pointing down, so that isn't any guide at all. Wrt architecture, remember that the building was nearly ruined and the base is modern. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the proposer 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, and thanks, 4nn1l2, for having fixed the issue -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good now. @Basile Morin: Thank you very much for your help! @4nn1l2: Thank you very much for your perseverance and for fixing the issue! I am sorry if I have given you a headache by raising the question of perspective correction. I did not want to annoy you. I just think that if we require a perspective correction from most photographs of buildings we should discuss that problem here, too, just to be fair. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this version. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran

The chosen alternative is: File:Radkan Tower, Chenaran 2015-01-26.jpg