Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
•  Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Cmao20: Yeah, I was jamming myself into a doorway on the otherside of the road to fit the minaret into the frame, and even then I had to move about to avoid capturing the doorway in the shot. A 17mm tilt-shift lens would have helped, but would still have resulted in the rectilinear stretching. However, you're right that using software to mimic this has used up a lot of pixels towards the top of the image, making it softer. I'd argue that this isn't noticeable until you're viewing pixel-for-pixel, though. --Bobulous (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment This is certainly an interesting photo, and I'm glad it's a VI (and a QI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)