Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilique Saint-Remi de Reims Exterior 1, Reims, France - Diliff.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Diliff (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hmm. Of course there is Diliff-execution and therefore great quality, but honestly I am not a fan of the angle (I understand that you (Diliff) didn't nominate it). I stood there a year ago, and I felt that the straight-on angle works better. Of course your image is much better technically (and much colder, fwiw), but having just a bit of the right surface of the right tower looks a bit odd to me, especially given that we have much more of the left tower. It is good to see that your version included the transept, which is a major plus. I realize you also have a version that looks very similar to mine, but imo is improvable w.r.t. PC (e.g. the rose is clearly not a perfect circle). Imho that second version, better processed and perhaps with a less squary crop could be a good FP. --DXR (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • From memory, I applied a small amount of vertical compression to it to avoid too much distortion in the towers (I could be wrong, but it would explain the slightly squashed rose). I think both views have different strengths and weaknesses but overall, showing the transept is useful for an understanding of the shape of it. I enjoy the symmetry of a straight on view, but you lose a sense of what the building really is. A full frontal view a church is often nothing more than a study of its face, so I try to get a diagonal view of the church when it is practical to do so (often there are too many obstructions for a good view). But yes, you're right. I didn't nominate it, so I suppose it's Paris16's choice. I could support either, and I'd be happy to restitch without vertical compression if you think it's necessary (I didn't notice the rose until you mentioned it - it's only very slightly squashed). Diliff (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quite like your face analogy, and fair enough. Of course I don't intend to oppose or do anything like that and like with portraits, it might indeed just be personal preference. I personally find that tall towers make diagonals prone to strange effects, especially with full PC (and so I get your reasoning for slight squishing of the height). Perhaps I simply have a mind that works best in 45° increments ;-) --DXR (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Halavar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It needs a vertical perspective correction IMO. The right side is leaning in. Otherwise great quality and composition is ok. Poco2 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, yes slightly.. It looks like Paris 16 has introduced that problem when he did some perspective correction on it. I compared it to the previous version and while mine wasn't perfect (seems to be leaning outwards on both sides a tiny bit), he seems to have made it worse. Oh well, I'll see if I can fix it. Diliff (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings