Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม วัดพระแก้ว กรุงเทพมหานคร - Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok, Thailand.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม วัดพระแก้ว กรุงเทพมหานคร - Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok, Thailand.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 22:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok
  • Absolutely. Actually the camera was on the tripod, and several pictures were necessary to clone out a few visitors. Otherwise I could have waited centuries before this place gets empty. And I arrived early morning, before the opening! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Benh, but why only 12MP from your 30MP camera? -- Colin (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Low resolution: downsized about 60% with no justification. I am happy to overlook downsizing when the image is >20MP or if there is a good reason why the shot was technically challenging or we are stuck with whatever some external photographer uploaded to Flickr and the shot is outstanding. But not a 30>12MP downsize from a Commons regular. Happy to remove the oppose if full resolution uploaded. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, aren't you a bit extreme here? Although I more or less agree with you, this puts quite a pressure on a user IMO (and it's not like that user overwhelms us with his entire Lr catalog). Nothing obliges Basile to upload full size, and 12mpix of that quality seems very reasonable to me. At least, why not express your opinion through a neutral? Just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benh, back in March, Basile was very adamant in opposing a cormorant photo downsized from 50 to 20MP. The Commons:Image guidelines for FP do ask photographers not to downsize. Most reviewers allow some downsizing for reasons I gave, but may oppose otherwise. The issue has been discussed many times, without being able to come up with a rule we can all agree on. Anyway, I only get one vote so others are quite capable of supporting this if they wish. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise Colin, the downsize was from 26,6 to 20 MP. From 50 to 26,6 was a crop as the bird was pretty far as my longest tele is "only" 600m (or rather 300m x 2). Cropping for such a reason is, I believe, acceptable for wildlife shots. Furthermore I was on a boat (in movement) in the Chobe river and not standing in front of a building. Poco2 09:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This monument is one of the most, if not the most important of Thailand. Type "main sites Thailand" or "main sites Bangkok" on Google, then you get results like this one or that one showing the Grand Palace in first positions. There was no decent picture on Wikipedia of this building before I upload the file. Check the Category:Wat Phra Kaew. The photograph was shot @11 mm focal length FF, so that I could get the whole buildings after perspective correction (and obviously slight size reduction, which is completely normal in architecture photography). This is not downsized. As said above, it's very difficult to find a good image of this temple on Google without tourist. Then I think the high educational value, with the relative rarity, and the correct light, should make it -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Perspective correction often decreases resolution quite unavoidably, as in the case of this FP. Basile has never, as far as I know, been known for downsizing his images, and so we should take him at his word. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cmao20 I appreciate that a strong vertical perspective correction in Lightroom will reduce resolution slightly. Some adjustment to the Y Offset often helps avoid having to reduce the scale too much to restore the height with the frame. I tried some fairly extreme "corrections" in lightroom and could not get anywhere close to 60% reduction. I suggest Basile experiments with the Y Offset and should then find that the perspective correction should have minimal impact on resolution. An 11mm lens on full frame is already an extreme ultra-wide, so if one is having to make strong corrections to that, then really we aren't seeing realistic proportions any longer. The state-of-the-art wrt architecture photos on Commons is a stitched photograph with resolution significantly in excess of what the camera produces -- we have loads of such high resolution images. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, I mean, yes, such high-resolution stitched images (such as this by you) are truly wonderful, but they don't come around very often at FPC, the vast majority of images of buildings here are single frame. I didn't know we had, as you say, loads of these images, and if we do it'd be nice to see a lot more round at FPC! But for me I don't think we should apply such a high bar to architectural photographs, as a sharp 12.5 megapixel image like this one is really good enough for almost any purposes; it's easily big enough to illustrate the building for any obvious purpose I can think of. Basile's image is not perfect - there's a bit of distortion at the edges, probably because of the perspective correction - but looking at other images of the buildings on the internet, the proportions don't look totally out-of-joint to me, so it's still an accurate depiction of the building. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cmao20, for the comment and accurate research. Yes, this case is exactly the same than Podzemnik's before and after perspective correction + crop. This is not downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. Yes 12MP is ok for many purposes. It is just a very little short of what is needed for a Nat Geo spread at 300dpi and shorter still than needed for a Vogue spread. One of the ideas I explored in that essay was the difference between a "bold subject" and a "detailed subject". Some images are a bit of both. I want to see the detail of the tiles on this temple, but there isn't the resolution. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daniel Case: what do you mean by "downsizing"? I remember I fixed for you the perspectives of your building File:Pratt_Street_skyline_from_Convention_Center,_Baltimore,_MD.jpg nominated in QIC because the operation was too difficult from your side. And now you're still confused with these architectural transformations, and seem ignore how they affect an image. I've said it already two times, but I'll explain one more for you. Also feel free to request my original files, they will make my words even more explicit. This picture is taken with the ultra widest angle rectilinear lens existing in the world. It means the distance is very short in front of these stairs in reality. There's a wall behind my tripod. With a standard focal length, you'd see only the temple and not the two towers. So, you really can't see much larger than this, the camera set upwards as it was. I did a small crop, but if I had used the top of the top professional Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (20.2 Mpx), be sure that the image would have appeared even smaller, without that crop. Why do you see less pixels? Because the image is not UPSIZED (I did not cheat), and because the original file has been transformed (perspectives corrected). It is sharp now, and it makes 4'156 x 3'014 px = 12,5 Mpx, more than 4K, and large enough compared to many other similar pictures in the same category. Now please try to give a link of a better image from the same angle, with a higher definition, if you find on the web. Good luck. Maybe possible in theory, but not in practice. Why is it not a stitched panorama? Due to the number of visitors in this place, technically it is almost impossible. Stitched panos are easy under favorable conditions, like fixed light and empty places. Visit that temple, and you'll understand. You want to see more details? Yeah me too, when I look at the Moon with normal eyes I expect to see the craters, the texture, and every single dust on the surface, this is my dream -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Extreme downsizing, and this in a picture from a user who pixelpeeks this issue in other noms with much moderate downsizing under tricky conditions (26,6 > 20 MP of wildlife shot from a moving boat). I seldom agree with Colin, but I definitely do here. Poco2 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extreme" downsizing, now. Wow! There's only one image uploaded, then I hardly see how it could be downsized from no previous version, lol. This is downsized, yes (check the history), and this too, and this one also. My opinion is you can crop as much as you want at home. Everybody do that. Because when you shoot camera upwards, you never see exactly what you'll get after perspective correction, then you necessarily need more space around as security. But the guidelines say "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality" (understood after upload of course). I just follow the guidelines. And disagree with you. No problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Basile, you have no problem selecting wow-y subjects and you have shown that you are very good at using advanced post-processing techniques such as stacking and animating. Have you ever considered using panorama technique? It would have been ideal for a place like this where you can't get far from the subject and you would normally need some special lens to get it all in frame. Pano technique is not just for mountain tops, it works very well in confined spaces or when you are standing in front of a too large subject. The functions for doing it are in the editing programs you already have. In this photo, I had water behind me and could not back enough to get all of the subject in frame and with this large flat petroglyph, I would have needed a drone or crane to get high enough from the cliff. Panos sorted things out. This indoors photo is an extreme example of how much you can do by stitching photos together while being close to the subject. You write that you took several photos of this building to be able to clone out the tourists, while you were doing that, you could have made something like six photos of this scene from your tripod and merged them into one fantastic (and large) image. You should give it a try, I think it would add to your photos to have yet another "tool" to make great photos. This image is not bad, you just have not used the best available technique to capture it. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree with Cart that stitching can also be used to get rid of people (and to increase resolution). But also agree that this picture is maybe getting little unfair treatment. - Benh (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Benh. Sometimes I make stitched panoramas (using Photoshop or Hugin), but it's rare. The first reason is because they very often generate errors, boring to correct (recent example nominated here), by yourself or by others. The second reason is because they generate huge files, boring to manipulate (too long, too slow on a machine, even with enough RAM). The third reason is because these details are rarely useful in 90% of their applications. You really need to print a poster to look at all these, and in practice we almost never print posters. Here I remember I spent a very long time with my tripod waiting that some visitors move in various places. In my originals, I have for example a guy sitting on the stairs, waiting for his girlfriend takes a picture of him. Also a group of Chinese people discussing. Well, you can't tell these visitors "hey, guys, please go out! I'm waiting for you to leave now, my picture is more important please" :-) Thus, if I had to handle that work also for every small part used in a stitched panorama, the time it would have taken would have been impossibly excessive. Probably the light from the sun would have changed from a corner to another one, or maybe a guard would have come to me because one hour at the same place in the middle of a crowd is unacceptable behavior. The problem is that people here seem not to catch the challenge (except you Benh, and perhaps Cmao20 and The Cosmonaut). Of course if all the reviewers in FPC are only familiar with the empty churches and cathedrals, they might not understand what is a popular and ultra crowded site like this temple, gathering a lot of Chinese groups, and other visitors from all countries. Just read the Lonely planet: Wat Phra Kaew is "today Bangkok’s biggest tourist attraction and a pilgrimage destination for devout Buddhists and nationalists". In the light of the guidelines A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. I don't think it's so bad, and I'm sure it's difficult -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Cart's suggestion. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping this is an image where we would love to see the detail on the temple. We don't need to print out a poster to see that, we can all use the zoom viewer or download full size and explore on our screens. The stitching errors you mention are because you need a panoramic tripod head to get the best results. But even before I had one of those, I could take indoor panoramas with hundreds of people moving about the frame: this and this and this and this were taken hand-held leaning on the handrail, with cheap lens and entry-level DSLR. People like to explore the detail in these photos and they go wow, which is FPC requirement. And the Albert Hall photo Cart links has such resolution and sharpness you can see tiny details in the distance and yet was taken with a £75 plastic 50mm lens. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many pictures with people that are not cloned out. Different goal, different approach, different technique. When I started photography, that was not even with a DSLR but with a compact camera I didn't even pay (borrowed). Big joy. I also made FPs like this one with cheap lens and cheap body. Possible. Equipment is not all of course and you can possess a Ferrari without being a Formula 1 race champion. Or ride 75 km on a mountain bike instead of a race bike. Perhaps better for your muscles. But plastic lenses break easily and take water. I've also got the cheap EFS 10-18 and the sharpness is far far inferior, incredible comparison. But it also depends on what kind of pictures you make. If you don't care the people, then opt for more pixels. But if you like to see a desert site focusing on the building only, then my technique is better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stitched photos are actually better for avoiding people, if that is what is desired. The overlaps naturally form a place where you have two photos to chose whether to include one person or another. And you can take as many stitched elements as you want and as much repetition as you want. And all the stitched elements above ground level don't have people in them anyway. You do realise all of Diliff's cathedrals and other similar photos are places with loads of tourists and yet he manages to eliminate them all. He ends up with a sharp 60MP wonder rather than a soft 12MP meh. Patience and good technique. The difference is that pretty much all of his nominations pass easily. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Also Basile, I do a lot of perspective corrections myself and I'm not quite sure how this gets you from 30mp to 12. I do get the borders would be stretch to lots of extent, but the center should still retain its details. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม_วัดพระแก้ว_กรุงเทพมหานคร_-_Wat_Phra_Kaew,_Temple_of_Emerald_Buddha,_Bangkok,_Thailand.jpg&oldid=368377100"