Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SydneyUniversity WesleyCollege.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:SydneyUniversity WesleyCollege.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2009 at 04:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)- Support - Good resolution, cool composition. Tiptoety talk 06:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Composition is awkward, imho. I believe that for architectural pictures, one of the following has to be chosen : EITHER a perspective-corrected view, where the strait lines are shown as straight as possible, and as parallel as possible ; OR a "fish-eye" view, which can be stunning for very large buildings or collections of buildings, where all the horizontals end up being shaped like sine waves. This picture sits uncomfortably in between and looks tilted and/or crooked. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure you've noted that the left and right wings of the building are different which explains any asymmetry you see. I tried a few projections and I believe this is best: all verticals are vertical, and the building base is at eye height and hence is horizontal, the higher horizontals do become curved - but that is necessary to bring the height of the chapel into the frame. I find fish-eye almost unrecognizeable. --99of9 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the chapel vs. the other wing on the right hand side : I completely agree that the chapel is both higher and longer than the other wing. If you're talking about the central wing itself : I'd think that it is pretty symetrical, with all due respect to the age of the building. Thus, the roofline sloping more on the left than on the right is surprising. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
- Support If composition could be improved, it will be great, but I am OK with that one too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Wide angle distortion, blown whites, flat lighting. There's a shot here; this doesn't quite capture it. Durova (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)- Oppose - per Durova --Pudelek (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
