Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilique Saint-Remi de Reims Exterior 1, Reims, France - Diliff.jpg

File:Basilique Saint-Remi de Reims Exterior 1, Reims, France - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Diliff (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Of course there is Diliff-execution and therefore great quality, but honestly I am not a fan of the angle (I understand that you (Diliff) didn't nominate it). I stood there a year ago, and I felt that the straight-on angle works better. Of course your image is much better technically (and much colder, fwiw), but having just a bit of the right surface of the right tower looks a bit odd to me, especially given that we have much more of the left tower. It is good to see that your version included the transept, which is a major plus. I realize you also have a version that looks very similar to mine, but imo is improvable w.r.t. PC (e.g. the rose is clearly not a perfect circle). Imho that second version, better processed and perhaps with a less squary crop could be a good FP. --DXR (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- From memory, I applied a small amount of vertical compression to it to avoid too much distortion in the towers (I could be wrong, but it would explain the slightly squashed rose). I think both views have different strengths and weaknesses but overall, showing the transept is useful for an understanding of the shape of it. I enjoy the symmetry of a straight on view, but you lose a sense of what the building really is. A full frontal view a church is often nothing more than a study of its face, so I try to get a diagonal view of the church when it is practical to do so (often there are too many obstructions for a good view). But yes, you're right. I didn't nominate it, so I suppose it's Paris16's choice. I could support either, and I'd be happy to restitch without vertical compression if you think it's necessary (I didn't notice the rose until you mentioned it - it's only very slightly squashed). Diliff (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quite like your face analogy, and fair enough. Of course I don't intend to oppose or do anything like that and like with portraits, it might indeed just be personal preference. I personally find that tall towers make diagonals prone to strange effects, especially with full PC (and so I get your reasoning for slight squishing of the height). Perhaps I simply have a mind that works best in 45° increments ;-) --DXR (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs a vertical perspective correction IMO. The right side is leaning in. Otherwise great quality and composition is ok. Poco² 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, yes slightly.. It looks like Paris 16 has introduced that problem when he did some perspective correction on it. I compared it to the previous version and while mine wasn't perfect (seems to be leaning outwards on both sides a tiny bit), he seems to have made it worse. Oh well, I'll see if I can fix it. Diliff (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings