Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victoria & Albert Museum Central Garden, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Victoria & Albert Museum Central Garden, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 21:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The central garden of the Victoria & Albert Museum in London.
  •  Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff. This is a (conservatively) HDR tone mapped image, and stitched with cylindrical projection rectilinear projection. Diliff (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Stitching makes rectilinear elements on the façade appear curved. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you reconsider? I've re-stitched the panorama with rectilinear projection. I originally chose cylindrical projection to avoid the distortion at the edges (this is a very wide view), but if Commons insists on rectilinear projection, I'm prepared to put up with a bit of edge distortion if Commons is. Diliff (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's to hard for me to oppose a image of Diliff (I never had done until now). This image is technical on a very high level and more then just a quality image. But the compact impression and the clear and big visible shadow in front blur the composition IMO. So I sadly can't support this image as FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. :-) Yeah, the shadow is a bit of a problem. It won't really disappear until the summer when the sun is much higher in the sky. But is very difficult to get a photo of this garden at the museum without any people in it, so I had to go at 10am when it just opened to get a photo without any people. It's usually more like File:VictoriaAlbert2 small.jpg or even more crowded. The people are maybe not such a problem, but then they will be distorted at the edges (distorted people look even worse than distorted buildings!). Some subjects are just very difficult to photograph well. Diliff (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (weak) I have looked at the image serveral times and cannot really make friends with it. The quality is (as expected) outstanding good but the extreme perspective leads imho to an imbalance of image parts. The right front of the building is overemphasized - compare the size of the very right window on the right (the one with the grid) with the grid one at the very left at the same side of the building. Also the pond in front of the building is emphasized due to its closeness to the camera. On your photo the pond is visually larger than the complete entry side of the building. Such a misleading size ratio is not fortunate for an architecture shot. As far as I can judge from afar an exactly centered position had led to a better balance of elements because the entry side of the building is obviously the most interesting one. Probably on the stairs into the pond there could be minor stitching errors (see note), but I am not sure. Just remove the note if I am wrong. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there are any stitching errors. I took the panorama on a tripod with panoramic head so there should be no misalignment. I'll remove the note. Diliff (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I mainly agree with Wladylaw's comment. Top quality but very disturbing shadow. I would have probably try to capture the building without the pond. The right part of the building is also a bit too distorted, sorry Poco2 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support. I think the rectilinear view is far better. Also, I'm going to be the odd one out here: I think the presentation would have been more interesting had the shadow taken up even more area, say, half-way across the water. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 07:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I looked at this several times and I just can't get past that shadow, as it intrudes so much into the scene and is a distraction. Both projections were fine to me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I do not think that the shadow is too disturbing because it does not cover the building's main part. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the new projection at all. I maybe could have lived with the horizontals being arched, but now at least the right half looks simply wrong to me. For instance, have a look at the chairs at the right, the ornaments directly above them or the window panes and bricks in that area: They are considerably squeezed. --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, points taken. I'll try to revisit this another time. The main reason why the position of the viewpoint was so close to the water was because the grass was officially 'off limits' due to recent resurfacing, and there was a 'keep off the grass' sign immediately behind which would have been in the photo if I had been further back. Hopefully they'll remove the sign and let people onto the grass and I'll take a photo from further back, meaning less distortion (and hopefully less shadow if I time it better). Diliff (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Victoria_%26_Albert_Museum_Central_Garden,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=120757458"