Comment This is a Valued Image assessment, rather than a Quality Image assessment. My understanding is that the full list of QI criteria does not apply to a VI assessment. Given the cramped shooting conditions (I was backed up right against a doorway on the other side of the road) and the height of the minaret, I'm hoping this would be considered to be a "Reasonable . . . angle of view" as per the VI criteria. And, honestly, to my eye the converging lines make it feel like the minaret is reaching up into the sky, which seems dramatic and appealing. --Bobulous (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Useful. I appreciate your remarks. Whether you choose to try some work on the perspective or not is your choice, but this is currently the only really useful photo to illustrate the mosque's exterior as a whole. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: Can you explain the word "distro"? Are you saying that this photo does not show a reasonable angle of view? I have no doubt that a professional could capture a better image, but isn't the point of a Valued Image assessment to select the most useful image available on Commons at this time? When a more professional image of this subject is uploaded in future then the Valued Image marker can be moved to that. But for now, is this image really so offensive that it can't be considered eligible? --Bobulous (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must have a very different way of looking at these images, because I really believe this to be a reasonable angle of view. But I am learning that the majority of reviewers on Commons appear to be wildly offended by even the very slightest deviation from pure vertical. (I've seen some beautiful landscapes rejected simply because tiny trees in the margins leaned in imperceptibly.) @Spurzem: when you look at an image like this, does the perspective not give it a sense of three-dimensional depth that is lacking in a perfectly flat perspective of the same subject?--Bobulous (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Bobulous: Please no offense, but the photo gives no impression of depth; it looks unreal. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using the "perspective correction" module of Darktable, an alternative version of this image has been created so that the vertical lines are parallel. I still prefer this original image, but the alternate version might be of interest to people who abhor converging verticals. (I'm seriously trying to work out what might explain why some people are comfortable with converging lines while others can't abide them. Right now my best theory is that I've spent decades with 3D graphics, video games, etc, so a perspective showing converging verticals seems entirely natural and correct, while people without that sort of exposure may experience that sort of rendering as unfamiliar and unpleasant. But that's just a guess.) --Bobulous (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
