Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 05:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info The east side of the Paul Löbe building in Berlin-Mitte, facing the river Spree, during the blue hour. On the left the Reichstag building can be seen. Both buildings belong to the German parliament ("Bundestag"). If you look carefully through the Paul Löbe building (direction west) you can see both the Federal Chancellery and the sunset. Taking this photograph was quite challenging. I've planned to take this photo since a while. Finally I had a free evening with suitable light and weather conditions. When I arrived at the place a really hughe amount of photographers (let's say around 20-30 persons) were already lined up at both sides of the river (behind me there was the Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders building which is also a well known photo subject). The light conditions changed very quickly so it wasn't easy to find the right settings to have a short exposure on the one hand (to avoid that the first frames of the stitched mosaic are differently exposed compared with the last frames) and to get the water of the river Spree smooth on the other hand (for this purpose I'd prefered a longer exposure even more but then the light situation would have change inbetween the single exposures too much). For the same reason I used my 35mm lens in this case instead of the 50mm: I wanted to have less frames to take. The dynamic range of the scene was very high so I had to do it using HDR technique. To have a short exposure I decided not to take five exposures as usual but only three exposures (-2 EV, 0 EV, +2 EV) for each frame. For the stitching itself I had to play around a little bit with different kinds of projections. In the end I've chosen a "Vedutismo"-projection because the rectilinear projection caused extreme stretching for such a wide field of view. Regarding the crop I decided to use a 16:9 ratio because 2:3 would have ended in too much empty space at the top and the bottom. Placing the buildings right in the middle of the picture follows the rule of thirds. Finally, after some hours of work, I'm personally quite convinced by the result. I hope you agree. I'll be thankful for any comment. All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding image! Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support I also appreciate the explanation. --cart-Talk 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for both your pic and the explanation! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great pic, reminds me a bit of one of my all-time favourites --A.Savin 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (keep talking) 15:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment very impressive - is there anything you can do about artefacts in the sky? Charles (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support, the explanation is nice but the finished image still speaks for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support It is a very impressive picture, and I appreciate the thought and planning that went into it but I am just curious: What is the point of stitching a panorama from a whopping 54 frames instead of using a single wide angle lens (or maybe using just two or three frames) if the final version is going to be downsampled to only 20 megapixels anyway? Why not upload the full 50+ megapixels? Also, I slightly prefer the rectilinear projection for architecture (as it does not play tricks on the eyes regarding which lines are straight and which are curved), but I see that the rectilinear image doesn't include the interesting
churchReichstag building on the left, and I would support either version. dllu (t,c) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
On Megapixels |
---|
|
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Does it make me a bad person if I want this to fail and the rectilinear to become an FP? -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --DXR (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture