Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 10-12 HDR.jpg

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

File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 10-12 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 16:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St. Sebastian, Setúbal, Portugal.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
  •  Info General interior view of the parish Church of Saint Sebastian (in Portuguese «Igreja Paroquial de São Sebastião»), Setúbal, Portugal. The original church of São Sebastião was a small hermitage, built around 1490 on the site of the current viewpoint of the city of Setúbal. The current parish church of São Sebastião, located in the Dominican convent, was founded between 1564 and 1566, in a work sponsored by D. Sebastião. The design of the temple is attributed to Afonso Álvares, royal architect who built the churches of São Roque, in Lisbon, and Espírito Santo, in Évora. The work of the church of São Sebastião de Setúbal stands out for the military design of its structure, certainly derived from the training of Afonso Álvares as a military engineer. The interior, with a single nave, has interconnecting side chapels, and was originally covered by a barrel vault, destroyed in the earthquake and replaced by a wooden roof. Although it is not a Jesuit temple, its design fits into an architectural typology disclosed by the Society of Jesus in the second half of the 16th century, resulting in a building of large proportions, with a large and bright interior space, preceded by an imposing and austere façade. Although it has undergone some structural changes, the church of São Sebastião can be defined as "a remarkable building in the evolution of Portuguese architecture in the second half of the 16th century" and is listed as National Portuguese Monument (Idem, p.50). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A beautiful church, the light is good, the photo really impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Clear FP. I actually really like the wider crop here, it adds a bit of variety. Cmao20 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For the beauty of the subject and the technical excellence. Maybe the whole image should be slightly compressed horizontally, to minimize the distortion near the left and right borders. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alvesgaspar: Thanks for the hint, I corrected the aspect ratio a bit Poco a poco (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it "corrected", though? The feature of a rectilinear lens and rectilinear projection of a stitched panorama, is that a flat surface perpendicular to the camera's point-of-view is rendered correctly in all proportions. So the far walls, and in particular the central paintings and figures, should be correct in the original. If they were correct, then the new version has stretched them vertically and gives a wrong impression of the proportions of the arch, etc. The side walls are of course stretched by this projection and not representative of reality. This is simply a consequence of a wide angle rectilinear, and the only solution is to narrow the angle-of-view either by cropping or standing further back when taking the photo. Or to accept and live with that distortion. I don't think we should just randomly go about changing the proportions of cathedrals so that already-distorted side walls look less bad. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing is corrected one way or another. All "photographic projections" are conventional plane representations of reality, just like when we project the spherical surface of the world on a plane. In mathematical cartography we choose a certain projection to preserve certain geometric properties, for example, relative areas or angles. Distortions of the other properties are inevitable. Thus I don't see the point in respecting the geometry of a rectilinear projection (or any other) when the goal should usually be to look right to our eyes (or less bad, as you say). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rectilinear has properties concerning the facing wall that are highly advantageous and expected by the human eye: that the proportions of features of that wall (esp the painting and arch) are correct. By applying a strong aspect-ratio adjustment to this image, we have now ensured the image is misleading. FP rules state "Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable". The main subject of this image is now significantly taller than originally shot. I also think it is unacceptable that such a major adjustment was made without pinging those who have voted already. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Axel (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  strong oppose Undescribed and unwarranted digital manipulation of the main subject. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would suggest that we discuss the question of aspect ratio changes separately, e.g. on the talk page, because it is a general question. It would be a pity if the discussion would spoil the nomination of this wonderful photo. Regarding this photo I would suggest just to return to the previous version in order to free it from the aspect ratio discussion; most of us have voted on the previous version anyway, so it seems the easiest solution to let run this nomination on that version. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My oppose would change to support if the altered version was reverted. Though it would not be permitted per COM:OVERWRITE to just switch it back again after promotion, even if a consensus agreed it was preferable. As Aristeas notes, most people voted on the unaltered version. I'm not sure this needs a general discussion, because this is the first time I've seen anyone apply such a distortion to an architectural nomination. So it doesn't seem to be a general issue, just an odd decision here. FYI the adjustment wasn't small, it was a +46 Aspect Ratio change in Lightroom. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin I've reduced the aspect ratio to 50%. This image is no stitched panorama, but a single frame. I applied the aspect ratio to compensate the perspective correction of 47 degrees as after the perspective correction things were also streched out. Is this version good enough for a compromise? Poco a poco (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vertical perspective adjustment corrects for camera tilt and fixes the resulting distortion. It has zero effect at the centre (the central axis around where it appears to tilt the image). By applying a global aspect ratio adjustment, you have squashed the top, middle and bottom equally. It is just not a recognised architectural photography adjustment, and I don't think we should start doing it now. The stretching at the left and right borders that Alvesgaspar notices, are not "fixed" by also squishing the middle. The are just the consequence of your 16mm ultra-wide lens, which is significantly wider than a "standard". -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sidenote: This is not not the first time that global aspect ratio changes for aesthetic reasons have been suggested or discussed on the FPC page; it has been done previously, and nobody complained when the result did look fine. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Commonists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 05:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Iglesia_de_San_Sebastián,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2021-09-10,_DD_10-12_HDR.jpg&oldid=617109544"