Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 14:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info The Siegestor in Munich, here as seen at dusk, was designed by Friedrich von Gärtner in 1843 as the northern point de vue of the monumental Ludwigstraße. There's already another FP - that I also like very much - but I nevertheless want to nominate my own candidate, as it's a bit different in a couple of regards: different time of year, reduced brightness... All by myself, -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support I want a bit more space in front and this angle is just a little bit wide for me but definitely FP. --Laitche (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Great. -- Pofka (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Lovely. Love the streaming lights. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support, but I agree that there isn't enough space in front of the monument. The composition feels a bit unbalanced. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support, nice. Relatively bottom-heavy composition. — Julian H.✈ 17:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The composition might be better now but the file size is also very small for such a image, sorry --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Qualified support I like the symmetry, but as noted it could easily be improved by cropping the dead sky at the top. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Info@Laitche, Diliff, Julian, Wolfgang Moroder, Daniel Case, et al.: I admit, the bottom crop is rather tight, but for a couple of reasons. One of the few issues I have with the existing FP is that it shows too much concrete, pavement markings, and parked cars. These elements don't add any real value to the picture as a whole. But you're right, my composition tended to be a bit unbalanced. That's why I've cropped a significant segment of the sky. The result is imo much better now. Thanks. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think this crop is a bit too much, slight crop might be better and main subject is a bit small in this composition, imo. --Laitche (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I am with Wolfgang here, it is far too small for the possibilites of your camera. On the other side, the composition is featurable to me. If you don't try it again, I can give it a try :) Poco2 19:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, ~7 megapixels isn't that great a resolution for the 5D III, true. On the other side it's more than sufficient for virtually all practical purposes. I'd see absolutely no problem having the photo printed with more than 150cm on the long side. This being said, the reason why the image is relatively small is that I recently came to dislike correcting distortions / problematic perspectives in postprocessing. I prefer keeping the lens absolutly straight and perpendicular when taking architectural shots - and cropping afterwards. As for retaking the picture: Well, to my utter (utter!) regret I'm not Munich based any more. And even when I get the chance to go on an occasional photo spree back home, I always depend on weather conditions, clear skies, etc, as well. So for the time being I'd really appreciate if the nomination got a positive reception (and a star ;-) ). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- What was the issue that you had with correcting perspective in post-processing? It takes a bit more work, but I think the result is better (more resolution) than having to crop a significant amount of the frame just to achieve it. Aside from the time spent post-processing, I can't think of any reason why it isn't better. Diliff (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Correcting perspective in post-processing often lead to a noticeable decrease in overall technical quality, at least the way I used to do it. Especially when compared to shots taken with my lens kept strictly perpendicular... But of course you're right, David, I won't argue here. I simply need to redefine my workflow and maybe finally switch over to Lightroom - which I've never liked that much, unlike the rest of mankind, it appears. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does result in a decrease in image quality, but so does using a wider angle lens and cropping it, because to achieve the same field of view as a perspective-corrected image, you need to shoot a bit wider and then crop the part you didn't want (this image may be an exception though because you cropped the bottom for compositional reasons rather than because you needed to for the perspective). So generally you end up with less detail/resolution. Therefore I don't think it really solves the problem of image quality. Only stitching can really do that: you get the benefits of higher resolution and/or you can downsample to minimise the loss of image quality caused by the perspective adjustment (which isn't that bad anyway for minor corrections). Diliff (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but even if I should ever enter the stitching business, I won't start with images that prominently feature dynamic (and consequently also extremely difficult) elements such as light trails... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It could be possible even in this scene. You could have 4 images (2x2), the bottom two contain one light trail each, the top two contain the building and sky. No problem with stitching that. :-) But yes, I suppose don't start with that! Diliff (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but even if I should ever enter the stitching business, I won't start with images that prominently feature dynamic (and consequently also extremely difficult) elements such as light trails... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It does result in a decrease in image quality, but so does using a wider angle lens and cropping it, because to achieve the same field of view as a perspective-corrected image, you need to shoot a bit wider and then crop the part you didn't want (this image may be an exception though because you cropped the bottom for compositional reasons rather than because you needed to for the perspective). So generally you end up with less detail/resolution. Therefore I don't think it really solves the problem of image quality. Only stitching can really do that: you get the benefits of higher resolution and/or you can downsample to minimise the loss of image quality caused by the perspective adjustment (which isn't that bad anyway for minor corrections). Diliff (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Correcting perspective in post-processing often lead to a noticeable decrease in overall technical quality, at least the way I used to do it. Especially when compared to shots taken with my lens kept strictly perpendicular... But of course you're right, David, I won't argue here. I simply need to redefine my workflow and maybe finally switch over to Lightroom - which I've never liked that much, unlike the rest of mankind, it appears. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- What was the issue that you had with correcting perspective in post-processing? It takes a bit more work, but I think the result is better (more resolution) than having to crop a significant amount of the frame just to achieve it. Aside from the time spent post-processing, I can't think of any reason why it isn't better. Diliff (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, ~7 megapixels isn't that great a resolution for the 5D III, true. On the other side it's more than sufficient for virtually all practical purposes. I'd see absolutely no problem having the photo printed with more than 150cm on the long side. This being said, the reason why the image is relatively small is that I recently came to dislike correcting distortions / problematic perspectives in postprocessing. I prefer keeping the lens absolutly straight and perpendicular when taking architectural shots - and cropping afterwards. As for retaking the picture: Well, to my utter (utter!) regret I'm not Munich based any more. And even when I get the chance to go on an occasional photo spree back home, I always depend on weather conditions, clear skies, etc, as well. So for the time being I'd really appreciate if the nomination got a positive reception (and a star ;-) ). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes