Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fronton Panthéon Paris Dome chapiteaux.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Fronton Panthéon Paris Dome chapiteaux.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 15:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by me , architecture by Soufflot, sculpture by David d'Angers-- Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Please have a look on the file description page for informations about all the symbols and persons visible on the relief-- Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)- {{o}} Support Crop too tight around the edges (I'm beginning to sound like Alvesgaspar, aren't I?). Again, this is easy to fix with a bit of cloning. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to do so.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Done . Looks better indeed, thanks for comment.--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to do so.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment interesting, almost surreal the effect of the asymmetrically appearing dome as result of the perspective correction you applied... in educational terms confusing, but creative. --Elekhh (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry no. The perspective correction was very soft, only concerning the leaning columns left and right. I was not "just in front" of the monument, and that is enough. I wanted to show a part of the columned gallery at the base of the dome, and it was one of my very precise intentional educative point of view (look at the protective nests around the capitals). As it is very high, and as I was very close, one or two steps right were enough for this "effect", which is not strange, but only optical and due to physics rules. Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Than it must have been an asymmetrical crop. Still feels strange. --Elekhh (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry no. The perspective correction was very soft, only concerning the leaning columns left and right. I was not "just in front" of the monument, and that is enough. I wanted to show a part of the columned gallery at the base of the dome, and it was one of my very precise intentional educative point of view (look at the protective nests around the capitals). As it is very high, and as I was very close, one or two steps right were enough for this "effect", which is not strange, but only optical and due to physics rules. Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose think it would be better if taken from another angle, some figures missing description. Athyllis (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see explanation above about "other angle". If I were in front (centered) of the monument, one couldn't see an interesting part of the dome. About descriptions : Please read file page. The figures without descriptions are anonymous : soldiers of different arms (infantry, cavalry or artillery), and students of the Ecole Polytechnique. I didn't "square" them not to be more confusing. But thanks for comments anyway--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong support very nice photo and has high EV --George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)- Comment I would prefer more central composition. Tower seems strange. --Mile (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- I like the composition though it would probably be better in a portrait aspect ratio, with more of the columns visible. Support anyway. Maybe I'm becoming softer with age. Should I worry about it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for support. The purpose was to show especially the pediment (with explanations), the Dome and the lantern. It is funny that the debate is on the composition, I was not aware of this (maybe because I know the whole monument very well, and it is not a question to me...) Really interesting and enriching I'm not sure everybody agree you're becoming softer
, but I'm sure you are not so old. Important is to stay young in mind ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for support. The purpose was to show especially the pediment (with explanations), the Dome and the lantern. It is funny that the debate is on the composition, I was not aware of this (maybe because I know the whole monument very well, and it is not a question to me...) Really interesting and enriching I'm not sure everybody agree you're becoming softer
- Support Ggia (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Thomas888b (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this subject would be better seen from a position 10m higher in the air than your camera was. I know that may be difficult to achieve, but I think that's what would make it featurable. --99of9 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Funny challenge !! Do you know the place ?
. If I want to do that, I have to ask a permission for taking a picture from the main window of the personnal office of the Mayor of the Fifth Arrondissement of Paris. But why not, at the end ?...--Jebulon (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Not really featurable : this image is not so different to the others images of the Pantheon.--Sammyday (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment must an image be different to be featurable ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- So why this image must be featurable if she's not "special" ? The subject is not unique, the photo not so "remarquable" to my eyes (sorry for my bad english language).--Sammyday (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose-- Odd composition. If cutting the building was to isolate it there are clever ways to do it. If it was to show a detail it is not clear what is it, the dome or the frontispiece? Grinatyou (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The composition is not odd. I tried to make something different. lol...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Grintanyou. It looks like the dome is sliding off like a melting wedding cake; also, a closer shot of the tympanum in the pediment would be educational concerning identities of the sculptures but not this view.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I think this kind of comments are a bit disdainful and too much peremptory in my opinion. I would be very happy to have a look on what the three last new reviewers and opponents are able to do here before assuming so modestly...Some could sometimes open the files at high resolution, or read the description page, maybe. Or have a look on the guidelines. It could help.--Jebulon (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions but I don't see how any of them address the off-balance, poor composition, or lack of focus in the picture that detract from any EV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Again...--Jebulon (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions but I don't see how any of them address the off-balance, poor composition, or lack of focus in the picture that detract from any EV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I think this kind of comments are a bit disdainful and too much peremptory in my opinion. I would be very happy to have a look on what the three last new reviewers and opponents are able to do here before assuming so modestly...Some could sometimes open the files at high resolution, or read the description page, maybe. Or have a look on the guidelines. It could help.--Jebulon (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support the angle of view is a good idea, providing a sense of the depth of the building. Rama (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per 99of9, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
