Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg
I actually made this image by stitching together many shots using a panorama package, to obtain such a wide-angle view. Coupled with the upward lean of the perspective, this creates quite an imposing effect, which I believe to be very fitting for such an architectural work.
I've added it to the article on Graz in the English Wikipedia.
It was stitched from about 25 overlapping shots taken by a Minolta Dimage Xt using a table-top tripod, somewhere near the tele end of the zoom. Stitching was done in Hugin, using autopano and enblend. If anyone would like to know more, I'll try to dig out the original files and post exact figures.
Update: Thanks for your responses so far. Given the general consensus, I thought I'd submit a new version with the perspective 'corrected', and also a little downsampled and sharpened. I've also tried to bring the clock face out as far as possible. I still think I prefer the original perspective, though. Any further comments would still be appreciated. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's postively uncanny! - I'd just click the "edit" button to add my own perspective edit :-) --Fir0002 www 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've added two more edits, with the perspective only _partly_ corrected this time (to varying degrees). To me, the perspective in the original was perhaps a bit extreme, while the totally corrected versions (Edits 1 and 2) look unnatural to me -- 'it's just not how we perceive things', as P199 said. Edit 4 is straighter, Edit 3 has more perspective, and I think I now prefer Edit 4 the most. Any comments from anyone would still be very welcome, even at this stage. I would be interested to know what you think. Tam 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - Tam 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
*Neutral leaning towards oppose... It has a few minor issues. The main one is the fact that the sides of the building have a distinct inwards lean, particularly the right side. The perspective isn't great. Also, considering the fact that it is a mosaic, it doesn't seem to be very detailed and could probably benefit from a bit of noise reduction in the sky and downsampling for sharpness. Can you provide a bit more info on how you took it and stitched it? Eg, what camera/focal length, how many segments, what software you used to stitch it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've added some extra info on how the pic was made. As this is my first submission, I'm not quite sure what you mean in some of your suggestions. First, what do you mean by an 'inwards lean'? Do you mean that the sides of the building are not upright, or that they are somehow curved? I have experimented with correcting the former, but the result looks rather artificial at this wide focal length (rather like a purely 'architectural' photo), and I believe that the slanting edges of the building actually provide impact (although you are welcome to disagree with me ;-) Secondly, I don't understand your point about resolution/detail. This picture makes a sharp 16" x 9" print, and is rather more detailed that most of the other pictures I see here. Downsampling would not add any detail that's not there. Or are you suggesting that, when submitting to Wikipedia, I downsample the files so that they look sharp when viewed at 100% pixel-for-pixel zoom? Please let me know...
- When I say the sides have an inward lean, I do mean they're not upright. I understand what you mean about it looking artificial when corrected for perspective, but I think it would look a little better than it currently does. And yes, I am suggesting that you downsample the image so that it looks sharp(er) when viewed at 100% zoom, but only to the point where it doesn't lose detail. I think you could safely downsample it significantly without losing detail, because it is currently quite soft. Also, when you comment, can you sign your comments with a four tildes (~~~~)? It helps to ensure that we know who is typing what exactly! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed answer. As a newbie, this information is invaluable to me. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Thanks for being open to suggestion. The FPC is often a collaborative process! I personally feel that edit is a big improvement, but evidently it all comes down to a matter of opinion. I do think that if you're putting a submitting of a building on an encyclopedia then architectural accuracy is important! Another welcome improvement is the downlight in the foreground on the left hand side has been perspective corrected out of the frame. :) This is a good attempt and I'm considering supporting it now, but you do realise that a Minolta Xt isn't the ideal camera for high resolution/quality architectural works, right!? ;) Great for travel photography though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes of course ;-) Unfortunately, it was all that was available to me at the time. Tam 08:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Thanks for being open to suggestion. The FPC is often a collaborative process! I personally feel that edit is a big improvement, but evidently it all comes down to a matter of opinion. I do think that if you're putting a submitting of a building on an encyclopedia then architectural accuracy is important! Another welcome improvement is the downlight in the foreground on the left hand side has been perspective corrected out of the frame. :) This is a good attempt and I'm considering supporting it now, but you do realise that a Minolta Xt isn't the ideal camera for high resolution/quality architectural works, right!? ;) Great for travel photography though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed answer. As a newbie, this information is invaluable to me. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- When I say the sides have an inward lean, I do mean they're not upright. I understand what you mean about it looking artificial when corrected for perspective, but I think it would look a little better than it currently does. And yes, I am suggesting that you downsample the image so that it looks sharp(er) when viewed at 100% zoom, but only to the point where it doesn't lose detail. I think you could safely downsample it significantly without losing detail, because it is currently quite soft. Also, when you comment, can you sign your comments with a four tildes (~~~~)? It helps to ensure that we know who is typing what exactly! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've added some extra info on how the pic was made. As this is my first submission, I'm not quite sure what you mean in some of your suggestions. First, what do you mean by an 'inwards lean'? Do you mean that the sides of the building are not upright, or that they are somehow curved? I have experimented with correcting the former, but the result looks rather artificial at this wide focal length (rather like a purely 'architectural' photo), and I believe that the slanting edges of the building actually provide impact (although you are welcome to disagree with me ;-) Secondly, I don't understand your point about resolution/detail. This picture makes a sharp 16" x 9" print, and is rather more detailed that most of the other pictures I see here. Downsampling would not add any detail that's not there. Or are you suggesting that, when submitting to Wikipedia, I downsample the files so that they look sharp when viewed at 100% pixel-for-pixel zoom? Please let me know...
- Oppose, All of the lights are overexposed. Most notable is the clock, which can barely be made out as such. The sky is also very noisy. —Cuivi énen , Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 04:11 UTC (Still opposing as the lights are still too bright —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 15:13 UTC).
Opposedue to perspective distortion, and softness left & right. Will reconsider if a straight, sharper version is provided. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Oppose I think the quality of light and color is good though, but I oppose due to the unnecessary perspecival distortion. DVD+ R/W 20:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Support edit 1 or edit 2. DVD+ R/W 14:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)- Support. Perspective is good, makes it seem more imposing. Removing the perspective distortion will make it unreal. -- P199 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice to see that someone agrees with me here ;-) I wonder, however if this is anything to do with encyclopaedic vs. artistic value. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Edit 1 proves my point: it is too straight, without any perspective, just not the way we perceive things. I oppose the edited versions. -- P199 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice to see that someone agrees with me here ;-) I wonder, however if this is anything to do with encyclopaedic vs. artistic value. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, it would be a cool building to see in real life but I really wouldnt' want to see it as the featured picture if I had the choice of a more interesting building -- BWF89 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support for Edit 1 or Edit 2. Either is an mprovement over the original. I don't completely agree with previous comment. Just as not all articles are interesting to everyone, not all FPs will be of overwhelmingly interesting and significant subjects but I think some people will be intrigued enough by this photo to learn more, and thats the purpose of a FP in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Support Lovely image. Really can't see the problems everyone else seems to be having with it. I've added an edit with sharpening/perspective but it appears that Tam beat me by a matter of minutes. Have uploaded my eidt for comparison anyway. My support goes for either the original (I kinda like the perspective) or my edit. --Fir0002 www 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pro it was good, but edit2 would be better --Nrainer 14:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)- Oppose not bad at all, but the over exposure is annoying. As is the lack of sharpness in areas. chowells 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support Tam's edit. (Fir's is squashed - the clock is oval!) Still a bit soft left & right. --Janke | Talk 12:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. It is the best of the pics. JQF 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Edit 1. - Hahnchen 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Edit 1. A good photograph. Great colours and contrast, but the composition is boring. Why on earth do people feel the need to plonk their tripod down dead centre in front of a symmetrical building? Plant it a bit to one side and give the eye something to chew on. --Surgeonsmate 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Edit 1 is also a bit 'boring' to me. I prefer the original, as I believe that the perspective adds interest, and draws viewers into the picture. Any thoughts on Edits 3 and 4? Tam 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 12:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
