Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Senor de villaseca facade.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 11 Dec 2012 at 21:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
If you stand far enough away from the structure you can take the picture so that the columns are displayed right and thus give a sense of uniformity. Mr. Tomas, I'm not sure, I would have liked to see more of the columns and not that feeling like they were cut, also a little over the top. --The Photographer (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the problem is that there is no space in front to back off... I took the picture as far back as possible, beyond me there were stairs, a gate and a tree that obstructed the view. As far as the cropping, one has to determine the sections in such a manner that one has a "complete" "partial" story. Details in architecture are common and they demand thoughtful cropping. I think I achieved this. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification, I've run into similar problems, what I do is an panoramic, and then modify the perspective. Use a wide-angle lens is an option. Nice shoot --The Photographer (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Software can "fix" perspective "distortion" by stretching but no software can change the angle-of-view from below-the-subject to perpedicular-to-the-subject. This is clearly shot from below and that can't be fixed with any software. Some of our building shots, with perfect verticals, look weird because they are still shot from close up and below. The only solution is to get further away and/or higher up, to approach the perpendicular angle-of-view. But if the ground slopes down or there are obstacles in the way, there is no solution. One may consider that the artist deliberately wanted us to "look up" at this facade, in worship. Colin (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Colin. Angle of view in itself gives us a perspective. The recent tendency to "correct" perspective in my opinion is an abuse of technological resources, the fact that the option is there does not meann one has to use it all the time. Perspective, up and down and side to side occurs naturally and it is affected by several factors: distance camera-subject, focal length and angle of view, etc. To try to "fix" up and down perspective, which gives us a visual sense of distance, height etc., is just as ridiculous to try to "fix" lateral perspective that gives us a sense of depth. In some cases correcting a little converging vertical lines that result from wide angle lenses, and thus a distorted view, works in order to render a more natural look, when a natural look is desired. In this particular case, the converging lines are in tune with the natural way one would see the subject (see the focal length) in person. In some architectural shots parallel lines may be desire in order to give a more dramatic view. The best way anyhow to correct perspective distortion is through the use of perspective correction lenses or view cameras with tilt/shift/rise/fall. Sofware correction, in my opinion, most of the time works as a gimmick. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but my understanding is that perspective control lenses can't perform the magic trick of fixing the angle-of-view either. If you are only able to see the bottom of a gargoyle then there's no lens in the world will let you look it straight in the eye. A periscope perhaps? The perspective control lens has two advantages over software. Firstly, the software stretching will result in resolution loss. Which is why some stitched building images benefit from a little downsizing. Secondly, since the camera is pointed upwards, and a standard (rectilinear) lens has a flat plane of focus that is parallel to the sensor, one can't get the whole building in focus when tilting other than relying on a large depth-of-field. I dare say, however, that such lenses have their own distortions, limitations, and they are expective. The perspective fixing feature in Photoshop/Lightroom isn't very clever compared to Hugin. "Ye cannae break the laws o' physics!" -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The angle of view remains the same, but what is important is how the image is recorded and the optical process. Basically perspective control lennses and view cameras allow for the film plane to be parallel to the subject plane, and the image travels in a diagonal manner. The center of the lens is not centered to the film plane but offset, and the subject plane and the film place are parallel, thus maintaining the verticals pretty much the way the brain sees them. There is a good article here #[[1]] and here #[[2]]. In any case, perspective control with a rise movement either with perspective control lenses or view cameras is entirely different than perspective control with software. Software will stretch pixels and the affected areas will not have the same resolution across the film plane. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for your links and analysis. I'm just starting out in photography seriously. I can not vote because I'm not sure, sorry. When I vote for something is when there is no doubt that it is an excellent job, obviously I am wrong, I will carefully review your links and learn a little --The Photographer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Senor_de_villaseca_facade.jpg&oldid=148457903"