Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carcasssonne vieux pont.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 12:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A panoramic view of Carcasssonne
  •  Question Eeerh, sigh... Could one of you actually show where the obvious stitching errors are (you mention several ones) ? I see one, but not as obvious as that, and I believe I'm a trained eye... It's not even sure you were talking about the same. To me the bridge looks like that. I've been there. No parallax issue here. Some overexposed parts but that really can't be avoided here given the circumstances... - Benh (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't understand "Eeerh, sigh...". I've been there too. Perspective could be good if the bridge were alone (if you isolate it, point de fuite centré au milieu du pont), and I personally didn't talk about "obvious stitching errors", that's not exactly what I mean. I just say that, if I were in this place, I couldn't see this as it is shown.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh = soupir. No u didn't mention stitching issue directly, but mentioned parallax. Then you'll have to explain more clearly in which way the perspecive doesn't look good... Because I really don't get you here. The slopes at each end of the bridges aren't parallax, perspective or stitching issue. They are... just slopes. Please be more careful when reviewing images and look deeper into your memories. Image googling or Google street view can help... In any way, if none of you can justify, you should consider revising your opinions. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, and not convinced. Even if the bridge is slightly curved in real (I know it is), I think the perspective is wrong. I'm very able to admit when I mistake, and I revise my opinions many times. Furthermore nobody is well founded to explain me how I have to review, or patronizing with me or trying to provide me lessons. No need to be contemptuous or giving me orders. Here is the place for public comments about pictures, not for binary controversies about comments of others. I've got a PDD for direct discussions with other reviewers if needed.--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this panorama is messed up. The bridge seems distorted and improbable, the perspective doesn't seem to be a smooth curve but seems to be broken in three or four (compare with something like one of these). I found one ghost I noted on the image itself since the annote thing seems broken for this one. Since the bridge is the main subject with the castle the secondary, if the bridge is messed up... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... what can I say ? Why is the bridge broken in three parts on the picture ? Oooh maybe because it is in reality ! Please check by urself. Image googling, street view or whatever, and eventually revise ur review. U may oppose, but please do so based on true facts. Your comparison has no sense at all. On the other picture, FOV is far wider, hence the pronounced distortion. The curve may also depend on the projection used. A straight line may not be curved at all on rectilinear projection. And one ghost... do you actually take night photos of touristy places ? Please try and you should realise how empty of meaning your remark is. It's already very nice there's so few ghosts. You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so you live under this bridge then? I still don't like the ghost man and tree. I see them as subtractive of quality and as nasty, unrealistic, unfeatureable and non-artistic image screw ups that might've been more understandable a long time ago even if this bridge is lop-sided by design or then-current architectural restraints, and no panorama can do justice to such an apparently flawed structure. Such an irregular design looks so much like a messed up stitch, so maybe if you knew something about what can go wrong with panoramas you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Furthermore this image is not "tourist-y" in the sense that there's practically no one in it and if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines, which I don't see in this nomination, the buildings on the right even seem slightly tilted, but since this is roughly what the actual bridge looks like I'm switching my vote to  Neutral, even though I don't think this image or this type of image is best to showcase this type of structure and anything more than a thumbnail version of this image looks God-awful. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't get it here. But at least you recognized your error, unlike some. The fact you don't like the structure is completely different matter, but photographer can't do anything about that. And I think you really got my point here : you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Yes that's how far FPC has gone... such reviewers which such non sense reviews. Where did I say that the image is touristy ? didn't I mention the place ? And where in the world if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines ??? I'd like to know more about that. Could you develop ? Being frequent reviewer doesn't automatically qualify you as good photographer it seems. You and Jebulon please try to take such pictures, just by curiosity. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about.. I think this kind of quote is very interesting (it means something like shut up), but dangerous like a boomerang...--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same applies to you Jebulon (restraining from reviewing)... Seeing perspective issues where there isn't. I just mention facts contrary to you (did you give me more details about why the perspective is strange ? No, hmmm curious how some of you avoid factual answers over here...). Anyone searching a little sees that the picture is faithful to reality. But oh well... - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose unnatural colors (ie. sky) and a lot of overexposed, underexposed areas. Ggia (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Carcasssonne_vieux_pont.jpg&oldid=49782784"