Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 14:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The High Altar and stained glass of Gloucester Cathedral in Gloucestershire, England.
  • Diese "distorted"-Behauptung wird nicht wahrer vom ständigen Wiederholen. Ich warte immer noch auf Deinen Vorschlag, wie man solche Kircheninnenräume denn besser abbilden sollte. --Code (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha. Und was ist das, "natürliche Projektion"? Ergänzung: Dein Bild hier wurde mit einem 10mm-Objektiv gemacht und hat eine geradlinige Projektion. Das Bild von Diliff wurde aus mehreren Bildern zusammengesetzt und entspricht einem 8mm-Objektiv, ebenfalls mit geradliniger Projektion. Deins ist ok, seins nicht oder wie soll ich das verstehen? Erklär mir den Unterschied. --Code (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, ich muß zugeben, darauf habe ich keine Antwort. --Ralf Roleček 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral See several discussions below.  Oppose It really is beautiful and perfect, but IMO too beautiful and perfect, it doesn't look real, more like some computer animation from a film or a game with a huge budget and very good animators. Truly sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ArionEstar: Now this is turning into a philosophical discussion, by "too perfect" here I meant that it was so flawless that it looked unreal. Kreuz said it better in his explanation when he called it overprocessed and oversaturated. That was the "photography-speak" I was looking for. I am not wowed by this picture, it has perspective but it does not convey a sense of depth, the light is flat, the arches nearest the camera are far too distorted, the stained glass window at the end looks too bright. I don't find this image as stunning as the rest of his church pictures. But I will probably be explaining this "not-wowed" for the rest of my life if I keep up opposing this, so I move to neutral instead. I've learned my lesson. w.carter-Talk 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about expressing your opinion... You might be right or you might be wrong, but you're entitled to a subjective opinion. You may have a point about the flat lighting anyway. It's not actually flat (there is plenty of contrast), but there was a huge range of luminosity in the scene and the only way to 'squeeze' it into a normal low dynamic range image is to compress it and sometimes that makes it appear flat even when it's not. As I said below, I think reshooting it when the lighting was more balanced would help, but for now, this image is what it is. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support perfect as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - It certainly looks real to me. W.carter, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the idea of opposing a photo because it's "too perfect". Because really great computer animators can produce a fine simulacrum of reality now, we're going to penalize the very greatest photographers for their level of perfection? I think that's not only absurd but really objectionable, and a totally untenable basis for opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: We deal very much in subjectivity when casting our votes on these candidates, and describing why you don't think something that ought to be ok, is not, that's very difficult. That was the nearest I could come to explaining why the image did not appeal to me. Perhaps I should have used a language like 'flat light', 'too bright stained glass windows', 'arches nearest the camera looking distorted', 'even though it has perspective, it does not convey a sense of depth'. A perfect rendition of something is not necessarily a good photo. Would such a description be more satisfying? We all have our own way of describing why we like or don't like a photo. You often talk about "moving your eyes around the photo", an expression I have never understood, but I respect that as your way of describing how you take in a picture. Mine is often by using simile or metaphore. w.carter-Talk 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those specifics make sense to me. In terms of moving one's eyes around the picture frame, see if you can find information about the linear arabesque. My father, a painter, cited a specific treatise, but I don't remember its name at present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, I can totally agree with! :) But even the greatest masters sometimes create works that does not appeal to everyone. I don't like all Rembrandts just because they have his signature either. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An odd discussion indeed. I'm very surprised at being pummeled like this for having a different opinion than the rest of the community, I thought that was allowed. I'm starting to feel like a heretic in front of the inquisition for daring to not be wowed by a work of Saint Diliff The Magnificent! But if it saves me from being burned at the stake, I can change me vote to 'Neutral' so as not to hinder the speedy ascension of His work to FP. ;) --w.carter-Talk 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • w.carter: Ups, my last comment was way more harsh than I intended it to be. I should have added a smiley or two. I've realized that after re-reading it. I absolutely and honestly didn't want to attack you or your right to an dissenting opinion which I do - of course - respect. Therefore I'd like to apologize for my tone. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @W.carter: Come on, this is ridiculous and you know it. Your opinion is always very welcome. But that doesn't mean that other's aren't allowed to reply on your comments as well. This is what we call a discussion. It's quite simple: If you don't want others to reply on your comments you shouldn't post them in the first place. However, I agree with you that language is often a problem here at FPC. I'm not a native English speaker as well and I often don't really know how to express my opinion properly. Thoughtfulness is the key, I think. --Code (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, I know. I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone else and I can give as good as I get. No need to apologize for anything neither you or Martin, I have a very thick skin. Now I also know that speaking metaphorically may be nice when discussing art or the taste of a good wine, but not so much when discussing photos here. I should have tagged my comment above with a ";)" to clarify that I made that one smiling. (now fixed) And to explain a bit, part of my job is to go through hundreds of almost identical photos of something each day and decide which one is the best for a cover, an ad, a brochure, etc. So I'm more used to the "in or out" system, "neutral" is new to me. w.carter-Talk 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Gloucester_Cathedral_High_Altar,_Gloucestershire,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=205218500"