Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seckau Maria Schnee Panorama 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Seckau Maria Schnee Panorama 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2016 at 09:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info Maria Schnee pilgrimage church at the Hochalm near Seckau, Styria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)- Support INeverCry 09:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose nice, but wrong light direction for the main, the "Maria Schnee pilgrimage church". The church is in shadow and too dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)- Oppose Composition and golden ratio: Almost 50% rather empty sky are too much. The horizon is too low. Otherwise verry good, apart from the a bit too dark church. --Milseburg (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Milseburg, I disagree that the "golden ratio" (or "rule of thirds" also) should ever be a reason to oppose. It's about as valid as opposing any image that isn't 2:3 aspect, say. Just as certain aspect ratios are popular/generally-pleasing, and certain arrangements of objects within the frame are popular/generally-pleasing doesn't follow that an image that breaks this "rule" is flawed. To be honest, most extreme panoramas (and certainly 360° ones) fail to be pleasing compositions. They have a certain educational interest quality, for panning around the image, but as a whole image, they generally don't please the eye imo. One can argue such panoramas are meant to simulate the view of a person looking around the view while looking straight ahead. As such, a horizon about halfway is natural, and indeed the camera will be facing that way to avoid distortions. So a seriously cropped sky (as some of your noms have) looks vertically compromised to me. The view is very wide and thus needs room to breathe vertically. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- We will not agree here. I feel a 50:50 split between sky and ground even at these formats to be disadvantageous. Especially so much blue sky is boring. Think of the impression it would make in printed form on the wall. This is not a sperical panorama. --Milseburg (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't 360 but is quite extreme. Certainly wider than one sees without looking left, centre and right. Whether the sky is interesting or boring is beside the point. If a composition needs negative space then it needs it. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is too much negativ space here. --Milseburg (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't 360 but is quite extreme. Certainly wider than one sees without looking left, centre and right. Whether the sky is interesting or boring is beside the point. If a composition needs negative space then it needs it. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- We will not agree here. I feel a 50:50 split between sky and ground even at these formats to be disadvantageous. Especially so much blue sky is boring. Think of the impression it would make in printed form on the wall. This is not a sperical panorama. --Milseburg (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Milseburg, I disagree that the "golden ratio" (or "rule of thirds" also) should ever be a reason to oppose. It's about as valid as opposing any image that isn't 2:3 aspect, say. Just as certain aspect ratios are popular/generally-pleasing, and certain arrangements of objects within the frame are popular/generally-pleasing doesn't follow that an image that breaks this "rule" is flawed. To be honest, most extreme panoramas (and certainly 360° ones) fail to be pleasing compositions. They have a certain educational interest quality, for panning around the image, but as a whole image, they generally don't please the eye imo. One can argue such panoramas are meant to simulate the view of a person looking around the view while looking straight ahead. As such, a horizon about halfway is natural, and indeed the camera will be facing that way to avoid distortions. So a seriously cropped sky (as some of your noms have) looks vertically compromised to me. The view is very wide and thus needs room to breathe vertically. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject and ground is just too dark. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate illumination of main subject, sorry. And in general I feel it is only very seldom the advantage in information richness of a near 360 deg panorama outweighs the disadvantages of the very non-practical aspect ratio of such an image and its composition. And this particular example is not one of them - for me. But it was probably breattaking to be there and see it with your own eyes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
