Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:San Francisco Ferry Building (cropped).jpg

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

Image:San Francisco Ferry Building (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

The San Francisco Ferry Building

  •  Info everything by JaGa - The Ferry Building is a terminal for ferries on the San Francisco Bay and an upscale shopping center located on The Embarcadero in San Francisco, California. The Bay Bridge can be seen in the background. -- JaGa 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- JaGa 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion, tilt. – flamurai 01:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Rectilinear isn't the only projection type out there, you know. On a picture this size a pure rectilinear will cause distortion on the edges. But if people think that would be better, I could try a restitch. --JaGa 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends how you define distortion. If you want to look at things in terms of equidistance, rectilinear projections will be distorted no matter what. But to the human eye, rectilinear is undestorted and the prefered projection for photographs with straight lines that look unnatural with a curvilinear projection IMO. Thegreenj 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A big part of the problem is that the tilt makes the distortion seem worse since it makes the wings of the building asymmetrical. The curve on the left side is more severe than the right. – flamurai 02:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Well, I can certainly restitch. I was attempting to mitigate the distortion in the corners, but if it detracts from the overall perception I'll change it. BUT, before I go to the trouble - would anyone actually vote for this thing if it were ram-rod straight? --JaGa 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd try rectilinear too. and it's almost free, so... :)Benh 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd like to say something here. I think flamu's use of the 24-Hour Template of Shame was overly harsh. Yes, the building has a roughly 0.1 degree tilt. And yes, my attempt to mitigate distortion around the edges has been unpopular. But considering the use of "barrel distortion" to describe a stitched panorama, I'm thinking a few seconds' glance at the thumbnail was all that went into the decision. My guess is he glanced at the picture, didn't recognize my name (and we all know how important authorship is in FP), jumped to the conclusion this was just some tourist snapshot, and slapped it with the template. Considering that the Template of Shame basically announces, "wow, this picture is so obviously bad it should be removed as quickly as possible" I think an editor should use more discretion before labeling someone else's work with this humiliating tag. --JaGa (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings, but I thought the purpose of the template was to avoid the humiliation of a string of oppose votes. Maybe this was borderline. I admit I don't recognize your user name. As far as the photo goes, how it was made is not that relevant. FP is not to reward technical excellence... that's QI. When I'm rating, I don't think, "well, that's a nice job for a stitched panorama of a building", I think, "it's not aesthetically pleasing and it's making me slightly dizzy". I did not just glance at the thumbnail. I looked at the full size image, looked for comparable images in the FP gallery plus the web and flickr, and then tried to find other shots of long buildings to see if the distortion was normal. But it's not. Sorry if I used the wrong term, as IANAP, but that's what the result looks like. Image:MuseeDOrsay.jpg, Image:Image-Schloss Nymphenburg Munich CC.jpg, and Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg set the standard for FPs of buildings like this, and this doesn't meet that standard. But anyway, it's been over 35 hours, and the template hasn't been removed... so was it really too harsh? – flamurai 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So any work of lesser quality than photographers like Sanchezn, Richard Bartz, and Diliff (your examples) are Template of Shame-worthy? C'mon dude, you completely overstepped the spirit of that template. That template should only be used for the very worst posts, and my picture isn't THAT bad. I'll never be as good as the photographers you cited. I know that. But my not achieving their level doesn't justify your attitude. And it certainly makes me not want to ever post here again. I'm just saying, use a little discretion before you decide to speak for the entire forum next time. --JaGa (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it should have went. You Oppose for tilt and "barrel distortion". Other editors chime in. I hurry off and fix the errors, and post a second edit, and a proper round of voting starts on that new edit. That way I at least have a chance to fix the picture. You should aim for that in the future, not the nuclear option. --JaGa (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this a little too harsh. When your work is being critiqued, take it for what it is and nothing else: a reaction to one photo, not your skill as a photographer. Regarding my "attitude": I used to get pissed off at the person who critiqued me, thinking I was better than them, they didn't know what they were talking about, they were an asshole... but the harsher someone feels they can be in a critique, the more useful it is. Just take the information, parse it, and use what you can to improve. Instead of that, you immediately came back with a snarky comment ("rectilinear isn't the only project type out there, you know"), which is just a waste of energy. I used the template because I thought the image had no chance of succeeding... simple as that. You still have a chance to fix the photo. The template doesn't change that. – flamurai 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to admit I'm sensitive. That template speaks for the entire group, and should only be used in extreme and obvious cases. Using the template on my image implies that it belongs to that "extremely and obviously bad" category, and I resent it. Simple as that. But are you willing to admit you may have jumped the gun with the template? I see no advantage of using the template instead of the way I described in the "this is how it should have went" section above. Your Oppose didn't bother me (except your terminology did make me doubt your knowledge, I'll admit that); the template was an insult and a complication, because now I don't know if I should add a new edit to the existing image, or withdraw and submit a new one. A lot of submitters would feel the same way. You could have delivered your criticism without the template, and more editors would have commented as well, so what was gained? I'll I'm asking is that you admit you might have overdone it, and that it might be better to exercise restraint in the use of the template. --JaGa (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's in the "extremely and obviously bad" category, but that it has an "extreme and obvious flaw" that would prevent it from passing. I'll be more judicious with my use of the template on subjective issues in the future. (p.s., if you crop it tighter at the bottom the distortion is less obvious since it takes away the extreme curve of the sidewalk and palm trees) – flamurai 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is creating a lot of argument for a little problem. By WP:IAR I say fufill the author's wishes and let it run the course; it's not worth the discussion for something this trivial. Thegreenj (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:San_Francisco_Ferry_Building_(cropped).jpg&oldid=12368411"