Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 22:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition is cut down --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What does 'cut down' mean? If you mean cropped, then yes, I carefully cropped the image to get the framing I wanted. But what specifically about the composition makes you oppose? Diliff (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the seats are cut, that's what I mean --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred more of the seats in the foreground too, but it was not physically possible. My tripod was pushed up against a pillar directly behind the camera, so I could not go back any further. And to tilt the camera down further would result in a lot of distortion. Already, the viewpoint is looking down at perhaps a 60 degree angle at the bottom of the frame. The field of view is extremely large. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I underestand the situation. You could merge severals pictures in the future? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is already a stitch (notice the edit summary?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Capturing the whole of an interior like this is not easy. The wide angle-of-view can lead to all sorts of stretched and distorted forms, and features such as columns and chandeliers can look awful. This image shows a good control of these problems and has a strong three-dimensional feel. The level of detail is great, as one would expect from Diliff, and the bright natural lighting is handled well. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Question We have one round oculus (close right to the pulpit) , and several oval oculi. Is it normal, or is it a perspective deformation ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is normal. Only the 'central' oculus is round, the rest are genuinely oval-shaped. I think they are progressively more oval shaped, but I'm not sure and did not pay enough attention at the time. There may be some perspective distortions at the periphery but nothing that would make a circle look so oval-shaped. 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, convinced. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support and following Wilfredo's complaints, I feel that if we could see a bit more of the bench, it would be better, but it's FP for me anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors