Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Interior, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Interior, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 13:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support the only issue do not overcame this exquisite job. -- RTA 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Is this the interior of UFO? --Laitche (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The question arises if one votes on a photographic rendition or a photographic interpretation of a subject. The technique is impecable, but I think that the relationship of the ceiling and the ground is somewhat off. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- And what is off about the relationship? I know you struggle with wide angle perspective, but this is just how it looks. The vertical angle of view is larger for the ceiling than the floor (you are looking up at the central dome at a greater angle than to the centre of the seating), so the ceiling angles away more than the floor. If I was able to take the photo from exactly half the height of the cathedral, the floor and ceiling would have the same angle. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Between Colin´s and your comments lies the answer. Basically distorted and out of proportion... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem I have is that I think some people, such as Colin and yourself, have a pretty narrow minded view of what is acceptable distortion. Distortion is often simply an unavoidable characteristic of a wide angle rectilinear projection - it isn't inherently 'the devil' or something that must always be corrected, just as fisheye projection shouldn't always be corrected. Anyway, just my opinion. Enough said already. Diliff (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you are entitled to your opinion as to our narrow mindness, and such argument could be used on your own judgements. My pictures many times are opposed on grounds that I consider superfluos but such is life. I still think that more of a photographic representation this is more of a photographic interpretation, and I just do not like the way the visual balance of the image, which is a subjective opinion, but based on altered proportion and distortion by your own admission. For me it does not work. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well I think my enjoyment of some fisheye images shows I don't have some "no wider than 50-degree FOV rectilinear" narrow mindset. And many of us enjoy wide outdoor panoramas. Sometimes one gets away with it and sometimes one doesn't. Here, the angle made with the ceiling gives some misleading impressions and a 2D picture doesn't have the clues to help our brains correct that. The strong perspective is unnatural, making the distant wall seem tiny. One could exploit that extreme perspective in an artistic way but here I don't see advantages to that since it makes the focal-point of the room very small. The choice of where to stand, what to aim at, what focal length to use, what projection to use, where to crop/extend vertically and horizontally are all choices that can make or break a picture. At times I feel you are arguing that because the projection obeys the laws of physics then anyone who disagrees with those choices you made is being "narrow minded". It might be this FOV/projection would have worked if you were higher up birds-eye-view or right on the floor like an ant. Who knows? Here, the combination of factors becomes unfortunate rather than gloriously weird. I'm sure I've supported other pictures you took with similar FOV, but perhaps there the subject was more cooperative. (Or I'm just inconsistent) -- Colin (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you are entitled to your opinion as to our narrow mindness, and such argument could be used on your own judgements. My pictures many times are opposed on grounds that I consider superfluos but such is life. I still think that more of a photographic representation this is more of a photographic interpretation, and I just do not like the way the visual balance of the image, which is a subjective opinion, but based on altered proportion and distortion by your own admission. For me it does not work. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem I have is that I think some people, such as Colin and yourself, have a pretty narrow minded view of what is acceptable distortion. Distortion is often simply an unavoidable characteristic of a wide angle rectilinear projection - it isn't inherently 'the devil' or something that must always be corrected, just as fisheye projection shouldn't always be corrected. Anyway, just my opinion. Enough said already. Diliff (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Between Colin´s and your comments lies the answer. Basically distorted and out of proportion... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- And what is off about the relationship? I know you struggle with wide angle perspective, but this is just how it looks. The vertical angle of view is larger for the ceiling than the floor (you are looking up at the central dome at a greater angle than to the centre of the seating), so the ceiling angles away more than the floor. If I was able to take the photo from exactly half the height of the cathedral, the floor and ceiling would have the same angle. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. If you crop on top to the border of cupola its much more pleasant sight. Try. --Mile (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The shape of the ceiling is misleading. This image makes it look like the ceiling has a shallow slope, which doesn not appear to be the case. Also, the extreme perspective of the wide-angle view makes the central crown-of-thorns small and the distant half of the room look tiny. This diminishes the value of the image in illustrating those aspects. I find it hard work to visualise the interior as circular. I suspect this cathedral needs a collection of smaller angle-of-view images combined with a 360 panorama viewer. I don't think trying to capture it in one 2D photo is successful and the effect isn't artistically interesting enough for me to award points on that ground. (I see from the earlier link and this one that there may be a viewing position higher up, though possibly not for the public.) -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, I still think the arguments you make about the projection of this image could equally apply to fisheye images or any other non-standard wide angle projection. I still don't see it as being fundamentally that different. Yes, this projection isn't 100% rectilinear. The roof has been vertically compressed in order to avoid it being too distorted and that has resulted in the roof not looking as steep as it would normally. I could pick apart your fisheye images of interiors for not being geometrically accurate too, but the point is that non-rectilinear projections are needed to capture a wide scene like this. Yes there are compromises involved, but I think it's better to have a single image that doesn't capture the interior absolutely geometrically accurately than to have numerous single images that don't give you a sense of the overall space of the interior. I agree that a 360 degree viewer would be ideal though. But since we don't have that, I honestly don't see how it could be captured better. Anyway, I respect your opinion that it doesn't work for you, but I just think that it is a legitimate alternative projection just as fisheye or Panini or cylindrical or spherical is. It may or may not work in this instance, but I think it's the best projection for this view. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find a projection that doesn't compress the ceiling so much while retaining the other qualities. If I can come up with an improvement, I'll upload it over the top. Diliff (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't that there's something fundamentally wrong about a chosen projection. I've seen some fisheye of this cathedral and in some ways they look more natural but in others (curved walls) they don't. The decision for a particular scene is whether the flaws of a particular projection when taken to an extreme like this are too much or too misleading. I think fisheye images often give enough clues to the viewer that you are looking at an unusual perspective, where as this doesn't give the same clues. Therefore I think there is too much risk that their eye gets the wrong impression. With all scenes with a wide (or tall) angle of view, there is an increased risk that the distortion of a chosen perspective is accepted or is found unacceptable. Partly that's the subject matter (nobody cares much if the clouds in the sky are stretched) and partly that is viewer expectations and tastes. I don't think the projection + angle-of-view works for this subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Most people do seemed to be bothered by curved walls though. Perhaps you're not because you're familiar with the fisheye projection and your bias allows you to view fisheye images without feeling that they are misleading. I'm familiar with other non-standard projections that keep verticals straight but distort other aspects of the image. That may be my bias too. But I don't think most people are familiar with any non-standard projections, particularly when exaggerated by the wide angle of view (hence our many debates with people about whether it's natural or not). ;-) As for the roof's lack of perceived slant, I've given it a go and come up with a number of combinations of no vertical compression, a lack of emphasis straight verticals to let them lean inwards slightly, etc, but none of these adjustments will change the look of the roof. It seems that because I was at a raised POV, the camera is actually looking along the slanted roof to the central cupola and no amount of adjustments will resolve this. The far side is slanted strongly, but because it is distant looking in this image, it is the foreground beams that become your frame of reference. This is just the way it looks from this position I'm afraid, regardless of projection. I just think that sometimes what looks wrong actually isn't, geometrically speaking. The first image you linked to to show the roof slanting at a greater angle is slightly misleading because it's not a particularly wide view and the only beams you see clearly are the ones behind the cupola, not in front and to the side. If you were to see the beams on the left and right side of it, you'd have the same visual effect as in my image I think, although as you say, it also benefits from a much higher vantage point (there certainly wasn't any open to the public - the only vantage points available inside were the two galleries, you can see the other on the opposite end) which helps to lessen the sense of looking up at it. If you're happy with such a narrow view, fine, but I think this interior deserves a more encompassing view. Diliff (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I opposed my own File:St Pancras Railway Station 2012-06-23.jpg when it came up at WP:FP. It is a widely used picture and ticks a lot of boxes, capturing the whole of two sides of the building. But it has strong perspective due to the wide-angle view. I could also say that station "deserves a more encompassing view" and has high EV, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Most people do seemed to be bothered by curved walls though. Perhaps you're not because you're familiar with the fisheye projection and your bias allows you to view fisheye images without feeling that they are misleading. I'm familiar with other non-standard projections that keep verticals straight but distort other aspects of the image. That may be my bias too. But I don't think most people are familiar with any non-standard projections, particularly when exaggerated by the wide angle of view (hence our many debates with people about whether it's natural or not). ;-) As for the roof's lack of perceived slant, I've given it a go and come up with a number of combinations of no vertical compression, a lack of emphasis straight verticals to let them lean inwards slightly, etc, but none of these adjustments will change the look of the roof. It seems that because I was at a raised POV, the camera is actually looking along the slanted roof to the central cupola and no amount of adjustments will resolve this. The far side is slanted strongly, but because it is distant looking in this image, it is the foreground beams that become your frame of reference. This is just the way it looks from this position I'm afraid, regardless of projection. I just think that sometimes what looks wrong actually isn't, geometrically speaking. The first image you linked to to show the roof slanting at a greater angle is slightly misleading because it's not a particularly wide view and the only beams you see clearly are the ones behind the cupola, not in front and to the side. If you were to see the beams on the left and right side of it, you'd have the same visual effect as in my image I think, although as you say, it also benefits from a much higher vantage point (there certainly wasn't any open to the public - the only vantage points available inside were the two galleries, you can see the other on the opposite end) which helps to lessen the sense of looking up at it. If you're happy with such a narrow view, fine, but I think this interior deserves a more encompassing view. Diliff (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't that there's something fundamentally wrong about a chosen projection. I've seen some fisheye of this cathedral and in some ways they look more natural but in others (curved walls) they don't. The decision for a particular scene is whether the flaws of a particular projection when taken to an extreme like this are too much or too misleading. I think fisheye images often give enough clues to the viewer that you are looking at an unusual perspective, where as this doesn't give the same clues. Therefore I think there is too much risk that their eye gets the wrong impression. With all scenes with a wide (or tall) angle of view, there is an increased risk that the distortion of a chosen perspective is accepted or is found unacceptable. Partly that's the subject matter (nobody cares much if the clouds in the sky are stretched) and partly that is viewer expectations and tastes. I don't think the projection + angle-of-view works for this subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find a projection that doesn't compress the ceiling so much while retaining the other qualities. If I can come up with an improvement, I'll upload it over the top. Diliff (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, I still think the arguments you make about the projection of this image could equally apply to fisheye images or any other non-standard wide angle projection. I still don't see it as being fundamentally that different. Yes, this projection isn't 100% rectilinear. The roof has been vertically compressed in order to avoid it being too distorted and that has resulted in the roof not looking as steep as it would normally. I could pick apart your fisheye images of interiors for not being geometrically accurate too, but the point is that non-rectilinear projections are needed to capture a wide scene like this. Yes there are compromises involved, but I think it's better to have a single image that doesn't capture the interior absolutely geometrically accurately than to have numerous single images that don't give you a sense of the overall space of the interior. I agree that a 360 degree viewer would be ideal though. But since we don't have that, I honestly don't see how it could be captured better. Anyway, I respect your opinion that it doesn't work for you, but I just think that it is a legitimate alternative projection just as fisheye or Panini or cylindrical or spherical is. It may or may not work in this instance, but I think it's the best projection for this view. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 07:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Interesting view and colours and the quality is good as always. --Code (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting building. I agree the distortion might be felt as a bit strange (bad english ? Sorry), but there is nothing my poor brain could not understand. Furthermore I think there is the only way to show a part of the excellent stained glass windows of the drum of the oculus in the center. A pity the lamp is not straight vertical...--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
