Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม 8.jpg

File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม 8.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2023 at 20:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม 8.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม 8.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Thailand
•  Info created & uploaded by Kriengsak Jirasirirojanakorn - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tight crop at the bottom and perspective issue: the buildings are leaning in -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support Beautiful architecture – only wished that there was more of the road visible. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative is better. Yann (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose The bottom crop doesn't disturb me, but the lack of perspective correctoin (fixable) and above all the low level of detail (not fixable) Poco a poco (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not sure why a lack of vertical perspective correction is OK for so many of you. I'm not really understanding when that is demanded and when it isn't, and why. Would someone like to explain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm voting against, but I can understand other people consider the main subject here is the cyclist. Then they don't really care about the background. The most logical explanation for the perspective issue is the camera was oriented upwards. To make the Buddhist graves vertical, the camera should have been parallel to the wall (inducing extra space at the bottom, to cut off later) or the perspective fixed in post-process.

The problem here is that the gallery chosen for this photo is Architecture. Our guidelines are quite clear concerting the distorsions: Images should not be unintentionally tilted. Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant. On this point I don't understand how the others review, either -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it has some perspective and\or distortion problem, but it is really beautiful, and it is obvious, that editing would mean significant retouching changes. On the other hand, frankly, from aesthetical point of view our "verticals should be vertical" rule makes not all, but many of our architecture images look unnatural and sometimes even ugly in my eyes. So, I am not really sure that it is always good for a picture. LexKurochkin (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Tomer T, Basile Morin, Poco a poco, and Ikan Kekek: Here is a version with perspective correction. Besides the leaning verticals there was also some lens distortion (barrel type) which had to be fixed. It was not possible to get all verticals straight; seems that both (some of) the Buddhist graves and the ornamental merlons are slightly leaning in reality. The result is not perfect, but IHMO better. Should we offer it as an alternative version? --Aristeas (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it is good idea to make an alternative version. LexKurochkin (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I keep going back and forth between the versions and comparing them. I suppose the revision is somewhat better, overall, but we can't escape noticing that the main obvious difference is that different gravestones are leaning in each version. And the problem is, which one is more reflective of what someone would see in person? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks. It seems very obvious to me that the perspective in the corrected version is fine, and definitely more realistic than this one above. Thus I will remove my oppose if it's nominated here. I agree that the Buddhist graves are not always perfectly vertical (I myself experienced the difficulty in this photograph), however the difference between both pictures is very explicit in my view. One is leaning in due to camera orientation, and the other one respects the quality guidelines. Concerning the recommendations (for non-tilted candidates), the implementation depends on the angle. In this case, with enough distance, I see no reason not to respect them. Otherwise it gives the impression that the graves are naturally tilted (which is wrong). I prefer an accurate representation of the reality. The distorsions are really minor in this case -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Neutral pending above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of the alternate version per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose prefer the alternative version. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose With Basile Morin. --August Geyler (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative

• Dear voters, @Tomer T, Basile Morin, Karelj, SHB2000, Yann, Poco a poco, LexKurochkin, ArionEstar, Agnes Monkelbaan, Ikan Kekek, and Daniel Case: As requested in several comments, here is an alternative version with perspective correction. Please check the alternative version and express by a vote whether you like it more or less than the original one. Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support for the alternative version. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support in large part because of Basile's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support As per my comment above. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I support both versions, and this one is better. --LexKurochkin (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd really like to support this good work. But I still think the bottom crop is too tight. --August Geyler (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral This version is an improvement and that's the reason why I move from oppose to neutral. Thank you Aristeas! The lack of sharpness is though my main concern and the issue is still there. Poco a poco (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Technically not perfect but I don't know, I just like it, especially now the buildings have been straightened. BigDom (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral This version is improved in my opinion, but the crop is still tight at the bottom. I will certainly support if more space can be offered under the wheels -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Looks on first glance like the cover of some '50s sci-fi novel. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Thailand

The chosen alternative is: File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม 8 (edited).jpg