Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral Nave, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This image arguably scores extra points for rarity. Photography is normally not allowed to be taken inside the cathedral by any visitors under any circumstances, but I managed to get special permission to take this photo (and others). In addition, even if photography were normally allowed, St Paul's Cathedral is usually swarming with people and it would very difficult to get a photo like this without people everywhere. ;-)
- Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support It's is a beautiful (and rare) image, but if I may suggest... just saw an hour ago(!) a fascinating documentary on the cathedral, explaining how the building is very slowly "sinking", and how the pillar supporting the dome are cleverly hidden etc. I think you chose to squeeze too much horizontal FOV in the Frame, and the distorsions result in a nave which looks larger than reality. I couldn't tell at first glance that I was looking at the same interior. I think this picture gives a better idea of the volume. How about a worm's view without verticals corrected or a cylindrical-like projection? And just out of curiosity, what happened to the uncropped version of File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 2 crop, London, UK - Diliff.jpg (the link is dead)? If it looks like this, it would be the picture I nominate first :) - Benh (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. It's always a criticism that wide angles of view make an interior look larger/more voluminous than it really is. Yes, I could have used a less wide FOV but then I would have missed the top of the arches and the monument on the left side. I wasn't able to get further back because I was pushed right up against the font near the entrance. And yes I would have really loved to have been given access to the balcony levels but that wasn't an option. I did ask. ;-) As for the uncropped version, it's there. I just forgot to add the File: at the start of the filename. Unfortunately I couldn't include the horizon in the image because there were too many people walking around by that stage. I wasn't given a completely empty cathedral unfortunately. I was able to enter at exactly the time that the cathedral opened in the morning (not earlier) and the nave shot was the first shot I shot as I knew the cathedral would fill up quickly. By the time I got to the dome in the middle of the cathedral, there were too many people walking around and time was limited so I chose to concentrate on the ceiling instead. If I had all day and the cathedral was empty, I would have tried a lot of other views. Diliff (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I proposed you to give a try to the worm's view, or cylindrical projection. I found cylindrical to render quite fine in these situations (but that's only my opinion of course, and my results don't necessarily speak for themselves like yours). The distortions are easy on the eyes and, in such cases where we have the references to help, we tend to read them as straight lines unconsciously. As for the dome, how sad because I see it as a trademark of the cathedral. - Benh (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. It's always a criticism that wide angles of view make an interior look larger/more voluminous than it really is. Yes, I could have used a less wide FOV but then I would have missed the top of the arches and the monument on the left side. I wasn't able to get further back because I was pushed right up against the font near the entrance. And yes I would have really loved to have been given access to the balcony levels but that wasn't an option. I did ask. ;-) As for the uncropped version, it's there. I just forgot to add the File: at the start of the filename. Unfortunately I couldn't include the horizon in the image because there were too many people walking around by that stage. I wasn't given a completely empty cathedral unfortunately. I was able to enter at exactly the time that the cathedral opened in the morning (not earlier) and the nave shot was the first shot I shot as I knew the cathedral would fill up quickly. By the time I got to the dome in the middle of the cathedral, there were too many people walking around and time was limited so I chose to concentrate on the ceiling instead. If I had all day and the cathedral was empty, I would have tried a lot of other views. Diliff (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support although there is some noise and some distortions on the sides --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support OK. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --DXR (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors