Oppose This is a very interesting work, with an evident aesthetic success. But the distortion is too strong to VI. The side windows are round, appear here, oval; pillars in the foreground are dilated. The interior is not properly described --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the oval windows, but there are no way to capture a picture with vertical pillars and round windows. I think it is very very difficult to shoot a new photo better than this one and now, this one is the best in the category Interior of Église Saint-Sulpice.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the comment about the oval windows, yet, as far as I understand the technicalities of optics, there really is no way around them in a rectillinear (aka normal) photo. The only alternative would be showing less of the church - an option which I find less valuable for those who want to learn more about the place online. Of course, I agree that the description is not very good, to be honest, I'm much more a photographer than a writer and certainly no expert on details of architecture. --DXR (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the problem better than I know St Sulpice where I came once or twice. To understand this we must compare our photographic results, with engraving and paintings we have. Here we have two engravings in the category that are very illustrative of the problem. The image that you propose seems to suggest that we can play football in the width direction in St Sulpice, which is not the reality. I spent some time this afternoon to take a picture but my efforts have not convinced me either. We should soon have software automatically correcting this type of aberration. Already the software from photographs dimensional reconstruction are relatively developed they should hit the market soon. Apart from all these considerations: the picture is very pretty. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
