Alas no. In the current session all architectural images are corrected as you can see. Yours is not, this goes against the rule of desciption. it would be a positive signal to make this correction. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lines are vertical in the center and the footbridge is horizontal over the street. Turning the image left ot right would affect those. I assume the building looks leading a bit on both sides because of this particular angle from where I was when I shot. To get a perfect perspective of this high building, we should climb up 5 or 6 meters higher, I think. - Basile Morin (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have Photoshop and I know how to transform a perspective of an image, although this will alter the reality by changing all the proportions, in my opinion. - Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can not say things wrong. There is a left tilt, with a false vertical. The footbridge are not aligned horizontally and everybody can check it. Photoshop is a tool it does what you tell it to do. It can render an image by correcting the fact that your camera is skewed and that all 24mm lens distorts the images. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai du mal avec l'anglais. Ton appareil était légèrement penché sur la gauche. Mais ce n'est pas l'essentiel. En fait dans aucun tableau tu ne vois les bâtiments penchés, les peintres les peignaient droits, mais nos appareilles de photo déforment très facilement. Donc il y a des logiciels qui corrigent et ils le font très bien. En VI il faut être au plus près de la réalité. Si tu ne connais pas parfaitement les réglages qui te permettront d'y arriver je veux bien t'aider avec plaisir, si tu veux que je te corrige t'on image je te l'envoie sur ton Email, cette entraide fait partie de notre envie d'être dans Wiki. Mais tu ne peux pas me donner de faux arguments.Je comprends aussi que les premiers contacts avec VI soient difficile voir rugueux mais nous y sommes tous passé, et nous avons tous trouvé des gens pour nous aider. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Archaeodontosaurus really is offering and trying to help you. VI's have to represent the way the building is in reality not the way the photo took the image, or perspective way or what side we were on. We're only trying to offer good will. Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what you're saying and also what you're expecting. Although distorting an image so that it looks "natural" is not something I am used to do usually. I tend to believe that the "reality" is the picture recorded on the camera, and that any modification would create an artificial image, less natural than the original. Well, if everybody expect such kind of transformations, then I accept to do so. Be sure my aim is not to discredit others, but to share my personal point of view, and maybe learn. Regards - Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhile I agree this shot needs a bit of correction it may also not be the best to illustrate the point of perspective correction in relation to a VI for the future. Because in this image there are two buildings the effect may appear to be more pronounced. For example; a single house or building correcting distortion where the vertical lines is distorted by misalignment with the focal plane on the camera is more easier to make an appropriate VI. This will be harder to correct. But in general a VI is supposed to represent the image as accurately as possible as it exists in it's environment. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Perspective corrected. I followed the instructions from that page : en:Perspective control.
Though, I don't understand why the current version of my new file uploaded yesterday is not displayed per default, and why the current image is still the old one. Any clue about this bug ? Tried to purge the cache without success.
I think this is the best illustration for the considered scope, based on the related Category:Université de technologie de Compiègne. Maybe not a masterpiece, but good enough for the subject. There are two main buildings in that university and it's important to see both in the illustration. None of the other photos show the school like that.
