Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Condom Choeur BLS.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Cathédrale Condom Choeur BLS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 19:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Condom cathedral choir
  • surprised no one has come up with that joke before you. A nice aged lady, who kindly gave me some explanations about that cathedral, was very shocked when I told her what it meant in French! That cathedral isn't the most famous I know but it's in the middle of busy parts of en:Camino de Santiago paths. I only visited it because I had time after I got my photo next to the city's sign (My only motivation for visiting the city... really!). - Benh (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I did look at it, but it's not this simple. Not everything is horizontal or vertical where it should. Construction weren't this precise then I guess. But I'll look at it again tonight. - Benh (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really difficult to get these wide angle interior panoramas exactly right. Being off-centre by just a few centimetres is often enough to make things look a bit distorted or with symmetrical objects on either side of the frame looking quite significantly misaligned. Likewise, if the supposedly symmetrical object isn't actually completely symmetrical, the wide angle of view will exaggerate it. Diliff (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the (slight) ccw tilt is there. Will try to fix, but need to get all my sources pictures back, develop them to TIFF again (180 pictures !) and then stitch the panorama. Will take me more than a few hours for sure. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used my venerable 17-55mm at tele. Bulkier than a prime :) (but less lenses to carry !). I think what separates Diliff's church interiors from the crowd are the interesting compositional choices and especially the wide angle used. Just wide enough to fill in your vision, but not as much as to overwhelm you. This is what I tried to replicate above all. I had a second body, a Fuji X with a 12mm mounted on it to preview how it renders (but went a bit wider than what I saw on screen). - Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes that makes a lot of sense. Looking at the amount of detail you got, I really need to start to worry less about close DOF and move from my 35 to the 50... Shooting this kind of image with an APS-C sensor sounds like a lot of work, though! --DXR (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never found DOF was an issue (but can't make calculation to prove my claim). If you look at it that way, I'm actually at 88mm (35mm equiv.). So I probably shot more pictures to cover the same FOV, hence the amount of details... and hence the additional computing power needed. Thankfully most processing is automated, with little to fix manually on this kind of subjects. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoF can be a problem. Especially for full frame cameras. At 50mm, I need to use f/13 with the hyperfocal distance to get focus from about 1.5 metres to infinity, and thats with some downsampling.. DoF would be even smaller at 100%, and sometimes the background is slightly out of focus, but not that noticeably when the image is downsampled a bit. As with my recent photo taken with my 85mm lens at f/16, even that wasn't sufficient, although I didn't get the hyperfocal distance quite right I think, so DoF wasn't maximised. Also Benh, your 17-55mm lens probably not actually smaller than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens I use! ;-) Mine weighs 200 grams more anyway. Diliff (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes might be easier with an APS-C... but I'll have to try to make calculation to see real equivalences (or google for someone who has done it, because I forgot most of my physics and math). That photo you showed me (and which you took the same day, coincidentally ;) ) is pretty amazing technically speaking... And to come back to the topic : DOF is an issue, but not really in most cases. Yours is pretty extreme, and I really don't mind that a few columns or seats are a bit blurred. Having them sharp doesn't really bring anything to the scene anyways. I'd even go as far as to say that blurriness bring a bit of sense of depth. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cathédrale_Condom_Choeur_BLS.jpg&oldid=166857961"