Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 10:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment If you would move little bit to left, to capture symmetric. I would try portrait mode. I see that ceiling inside is much more interesting. --Mile (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but it's hard to make a photo symmetrical when it isn't in its nature. I could crop the right side at the edge of the columns and that might improve the composition though, but it would make it less symmetrical, not more. The ceiling is interesting, but it isn't the subject of the image - the subject is the rood screen - the wooden carving in the middle. Diliff (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll reprocess it and see if I can improve the framing. Diliff (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you crop on left so at least the pattern on the floor is symmetrical. But it's already quite good. - Benh (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the image again, I'm more inclined to just abandon horizontal symmetry completely, and crop more of the right. I agree that the right side edge contributes little to the image, but the arches on the left (which support the organ just out of frame above)) are interesting IMO. Also, on reprocessing, I've realised that I can gain more ceiling as that too was cropped in this version of it. I'll upload my idea of the framing over the top of this version and if it's really disliked, I'll revert or crop symmetrically. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it works (not with me for sure). If you're to give more focus on the left arches, how about you "rotate" to the left where the viewer looks toward, so the roodscreen is no longer horizontal ? If you have enough room to. - Benh (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rotating the view to the left distorts the ceiling in weird ways though. The symmetry is lost even further because the horizontal ceiling elements (like the ribs of the vault) twist at extreme angles (because of the angle of view). See this low res example. So the horizontals get twisted and the overall result is no better IMO. So I suppose the only choice left is to crop the sides symmetrically, right? Diliff (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you had more room on the left :/ I would go symmetrical, but that's just my two cents :) - Benh (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had a little bit more room on the left, but not much, and there was a person wondering past so I cropped it out. The subject was always supposed to be the rood screen, with some space around the side for context. I didn't plan to make the left side an equal part of the composition. :-) Perhaps I should have though, and included the organ properly in the image. I can't remember now, it was over a year ago and I visited nearly 30 churches and cathedrals in 10 days on a big road trip. ;-) I think for that to have worked, I would have needed to get further back (the AoV to the organ would be pretty large), and I don't know if it was possible. Actually, I see now that it wasn't possible. This is the view across the road screen toward the organ. There was a temporary stage set up for some reason which would stop me getting far enough back for a diagonal shot. Diliff (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you had more room on the left :/ I would go symmetrical, but that's just my two cents :) - Benh (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rotating the view to the left distorts the ceiling in weird ways though. The symmetry is lost even further because the horizontal ceiling elements (like the ribs of the vault) twist at extreme angles (because of the angle of view). See this low res example. So the horizontals get twisted and the overall result is no better IMO. So I suppose the only choice left is to crop the sides symmetrically, right? Diliff (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it works (not with me for sure). If you're to give more focus on the left arches, how about you "rotate" to the left where the viewer looks toward, so the roodscreen is no longer horizontal ? If you have enough room to. - Benh (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the image again, I'm more inclined to just abandon horizontal symmetry completely, and crop more of the right. I agree that the right side edge contributes little to the image, but the arches on the left (which support the organ just out of frame above)) are interesting IMO. Also, on reprocessing, I've realised that I can gain more ceiling as that too was cropped in this version of it. I'll upload my idea of the framing over the top of this version and if it's really disliked, I'll revert or crop symmetrically. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you crop on left so at least the pattern on the floor is symmetrical. But it's already quite good. - Benh (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll reprocess it and see if I can improve the framing. Diliff (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but it's hard to make a photo symmetrical when it isn't in its nature. I could crop the right side at the edge of the columns and that might improve the composition though, but it would make it less symmetrical, not more. The ceiling is interesting, but it isn't the subject of the image - the subject is the rood screen - the wooden carving in the middle. Diliff (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Framing has been updated. Not necessarily based on the suggestions above, but (as I said to Benh), maybe it's best to embrace the asymmetry in an image like this? Your thoughts? If it's really disliked, I can crop the left side and leave it as symmetrical as I can, but as you can see, the choir doesn't align along the same axis as the nave so it will always be a little off-centred. Diliff (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Another change to the framing. It's now symmetrical, cropping out the arches of the organ on the left. Diliff (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand your argument against moving a little to the left. It would make so many things line up properly. At the top, the perspective is just getting too weird for me, with the inside of the arch appearing to face the viewer. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "I don't understand your argument against moving a little to the left" either. ;-) When you say move to the left, do you mean the camera's position? The framing? The perspective? I didn't have any argument against anything on the left side of the frame. It was Benh who disliked the asymmetry of a previous version that I uploaded earlier today. You'll have to explain a bit better before I understand what you're getting at. As for the top of the arch, I don't think it does appear to face the viewer. It appears to be at roughly a 45 degree angle to me, which is about what it was. Distortion at a 45 degree angle is strong, but not ridiculously so IMO. I could just crop the top of the arch if you find it so uncomfortable though. The subject is the rood screen, not the arch. The arch is only there for compositional reasons. Diliff (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood Benh, but I thought he wished you had captured it a little to the left -- yes the camera position, so that the other objects align centrally. So I didn't know why you were rejecting that idea, but perhaps you thought he meant just to move the crop to the left. Yes, "face the viewer" does mean about 45 degrees. Surely the top of the arch faces the floor, unless this one has a weird twist in it, so how can that be "about what it was"? I know the subject is the screen, but the misalignment of the ceiling behind and when looking through the arch, are jarring. The detail is, as usual, fantastic. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was Mile who suggested I 'move to the left', but I assumed that he meant move the framing to the left, not move my physical camera position. Benh specifically talked about the framing. Anyway, yes, moving the camera to the left would would aligned the centre of the rood screen with the centre of the choir, but I aligned myself with the rood screen (and the tiling of the nave) because it was the subject. Not doing so would have meant that you'd be looking at the rood screen from a slight angle, resulting in the rood screen and the floor tiles not being symmetrical. It might be jarring, but it's the reality of the building - the misalignment is real, so why not show it as it is instead of hiding it and creating some other distortion in the process? Yes of course the top of the arch normally faces the floor, but you know that any three dimensional scene represented with rectilinear projection has this issue, whether it's ultra wide angle or not. Also, I would say that if the underside of the arch actually looked like it was facing the viewer, it would have the perspective of you looking directly underneath it, not from a 45 degree angle. The fact that it was taken from a 45 degree angle means that it's facing the half way point between the rood screen and the viewer. Somewhere on the floor in other words. Still kind of extreme, admittedly, but definitely not facing the viewer. Just as you can never have a 180 degree rectilinear perspective, you can never have an arch directly face the viewer - it can only approach the point of facing the viewer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how moving very slightly to the left, while remaining perpendicular to the screen, would angle the screen. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's not as simple as just moving slightly to the left while keeping the camera pointed in exactly the same direction. You would also have to rotate the camera slightly to the right, to keep the middle of the rood screen centred. This would mean you are along the axis of the choir/ceiling, but no longer along the axis of the rood screen. This would introduce perspective tilt to the rood screen. I have no doubt that someone would then point out that the rood screen is not symmetrical. Do you not see that it's impossible to achieve symmetry when the building itself is not symmetrical? I would much rather keep the camera aligned with the subject, and accept that the background is misaligned than to blow the symmetry of the subject in an attempt to mask the asymmetry of the building itself. Diliff (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how moving very slightly to the left, while remaining perpendicular to the screen, would angle the screen. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was Mile who suggested I 'move to the left', but I assumed that he meant move the framing to the left, not move my physical camera position. Benh specifically talked about the framing. Anyway, yes, moving the camera to the left would would aligned the centre of the rood screen with the centre of the choir, but I aligned myself with the rood screen (and the tiling of the nave) because it was the subject. Not doing so would have meant that you'd be looking at the rood screen from a slight angle, resulting in the rood screen and the floor tiles not being symmetrical. It might be jarring, but it's the reality of the building - the misalignment is real, so why not show it as it is instead of hiding it and creating some other distortion in the process? Yes of course the top of the arch normally faces the floor, but you know that any three dimensional scene represented with rectilinear projection has this issue, whether it's ultra wide angle or not. Also, I would say that if the underside of the arch actually looked like it was facing the viewer, it would have the perspective of you looking directly underneath it, not from a 45 degree angle. The fact that it was taken from a 45 degree angle means that it's facing the half way point between the rood screen and the viewer. Somewhere on the floor in other words. Still kind of extreme, admittedly, but definitely not facing the viewer. Just as you can never have a 180 degree rectilinear perspective, you can never have an arch directly face the viewer - it can only approach the point of facing the viewer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood Benh, but I thought he wished you had captured it a little to the left -- yes the camera position, so that the other objects align centrally. So I didn't know why you were rejecting that idea, but perhaps you thought he meant just to move the crop to the left. Yes, "face the viewer" does mean about 45 degrees. Surely the top of the arch faces the floor, unless this one has a weird twist in it, so how can that be "about what it was"? I know the subject is the screen, but the misalignment of the ceiling behind and when looking through the arch, are jarring. The detail is, as usual, fantastic. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "I don't understand your argument against moving a little to the left" either. ;-) When you say move to the left, do you mean the camera's position? The framing? The perspective? I didn't have any argument against anything on the left side of the frame. It was Benh who disliked the asymmetry of a previous version that I uploaded earlier today. You'll have to explain a bit better before I understand what you're getting at. As for the top of the arch, I don't think it does appear to face the viewer. It appears to be at roughly a 45 degree angle to me, which is about what it was. Distortion at a 45 degree angle is strong, but not ridiculously so IMO. I could just crop the top of the arch if you find it so uncomfortable though. The subject is the rood screen, not the arch. The arch is only there for compositional reasons. Diliff (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subject, the rood screen, is too dark, I would like to see more details.--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did you view it at 100% though? I think all the details are perfectly visible when it's not a thumbnail... It's a dark wood though. It shouldn't be too bright, but I could brighten it slightly. By the way, both yours and Colin's criticisms are about things that could easily be fixed - perhaps a suggestion on what you think could be improved is all that is necessary, rather than an oppose vote? Diliff (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, I did not view it at 100%, I never open pictures when assessing in FPC, it is completely useless, I judge only thumbnails, of course. Don't you do so ? Other: you know how I apreciate your work. IMO, a candidacy in FPC should be perfect since the beginning, especially for regulars like you, especially for champions like you. Ransom of glory. An oppose is not an infamy.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you viewed it at 100% then I don't understand why you can't see the details. They are all there. They're not buried in the shadows. In any case, the point of FPC is not to provide lessons on 'getting it right first time'. If you have a specific reason for why it doesn't reach FPC standard and it can be corrected, I think you should just advise what you think the image needs and see whether it can be done. Images uploaded and nominated here are not set in stone. Adjustments can be made. As you can see above, everyone has different opinions on what the image should look like. I can do my best to accommodate everyone, but first I need to know what the consensus is. If you oppose without giving me a chance to address correctable issues, then it is a little unfair. It is about the image and trying to achieve the best results, not about the candidacy or the reputation of the nominator. It shouldn't matter whether I'm a regular or not. It is little wonder that many people have begun wishing for FPC to be anonymous so that nominators and voters aren't identifiable - there is systematic bias when the nominations are not judged objectively. Diliff (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder Jebulon, if your computer screen is too dark, or if you are viewing with a bright window behind your monitor, which makes it harder to see shadow detail. I think the detail is all there and shouldn't be lightened in software. Perhaps, however, the screen is better lit at another time of day, or maybe an evening shot would lower the dynamic range. As it is, the eye keeps getting drawn from the dark screen to the ceiling, and the screen almost acts like a silhouette. That's probably a general problem with such screens & dark wood.
- If you viewed it at 100% then I don't understand why you can't see the details. They are all there. They're not buried in the shadows. In any case, the point of FPC is not to provide lessons on 'getting it right first time'. If you have a specific reason for why it doesn't reach FPC standard and it can be corrected, I think you should just advise what you think the image needs and see whether it can be done. Images uploaded and nominated here are not set in stone. Adjustments can be made. As you can see above, everyone has different opinions on what the image should look like. I can do my best to accommodate everyone, but first I need to know what the consensus is. If you oppose without giving me a chance to address correctable issues, then it is a little unfair. It is about the image and trying to achieve the best results, not about the candidacy or the reputation of the nominator. It shouldn't matter whether I'm a regular or not. It is little wonder that many people have begun wishing for FPC to be anonymous so that nominators and voters aren't identifiable - there is systematic bias when the nominations are not judged objectively. Diliff (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't share Jebulon's opinion that an FPC shouldn't be improved during candidacy but it can make the voting messy, especially when you make huge changes to the crop/projection (one really should ping earlier reviewers rather than assume they will revisit old reviews they've made). We should certainly aim to get it right but I don't think David is generally sloppy in that way or this time. Opposing on a correctable aspect isn't forbidden, David, since you may refuse to make the required correction, and we may all then have to agree to disagree. Opposing for some minor CA flaw would IMO be rude. I don't think my main oppose reason is correctable, though, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your main oppose reason is that the top of the arch is too distorted... but you don't think it's correctable? It is totally correctable simply by cropping that part of the image out, as I said above. The top of the arch is not a fundamental part of the scene - it's the rood screen that is the subject, and the rood screen is not significantly distorted. As for the darkness issue, yes, maybe I'm never going to get everyone to agree on how the image should look. You (and I) say that it's appropriately represented in terms of brightness and shouldn't be artificially brightened, Jebulon insists he can't see it and Benh thinks its a bit dark. I can't brighten it and not brighten it. Certainly yes, nominations can get messy and changes to the composition should be reviewed. Perhaps you're right that I should have pinged the existing reviewers. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, actually my main oppose reason is the issue I started with -- that things are out of alignment. And this makes it harder to crop as it is quite noticeable that you have more of one side of the ceiling than the other. David, I said I thought you'd probably captured the screen's darkness correctly here, but that doesn't mean that that is an optimal result photographically. If I shoot my vaccum cleaner in the under stairs cupboard with the light off, then I've got an accurately dark photo of a dark subject with little detail. I suggested there may be other times of day when one could shoot this screen with greater relative light on it compared to the background. Maybe not. Sometimes one has to accept a subject has imperfections that prevent FP. It is still a fine photo and fantastic detail. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- If your main oppose reason was a question referring to previous discussion and the secondary reason was the only part that actually had any critique in it, then you weren't being very clear with your oppose. :-) As I said over and over though, things are not 'out of alignment' photographically. This is how the building is. Furthermore, the ceiling is a nice addition to the scene but it is not the subject, and is absolute symmetry a vital aspect of the image? If so, why? I know aesthetics play a part in any FP, but really? You're more concerned about slight misalignment that was a deliberate architectural decision than the fantastic detail present in the actual subject I'm trying to present? This is not a vacuum cleaner under the stairs. A vacuum cleaner is a household item that you can present from any angle with any lighting you choose and of course we should be less forgiving for a poorly lit object like that, but this is an interior where I have no control over the lighting (apart from what time of day/year I choose to visit). Yes, a different time of day could result in different lighting conditions, but we're only guessing - it could well be worse, not better. In any case, lighting was never part of your oppose reasons at all. Are you saying you've added it to the list now? :-) I just think that sometimes you have to present a building as it is, warts and all. The lighting and misalignment is representative of the interior. Diliff (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I only mentioned the lighting/dark-screen issue to defend Jebulon -- just because you photographed something accurately doesn't make it a great photograph from a lighting perspective, so his oppose is justifiable and you can't dismiss it by saying "that's how it was". You seem very certain that you are central on the rood screen. Well I've taken a grid to it (Using Irfan view's selection with a grid-of-four) and can quite clearly see you are slightly to the right of centre on the screen, which also explains the misalignment with the building behind. It might not be possible to everything aligned to the pixel, but this is quite far out. To see this, make a vertical line where the top of the archway is. It is handy that the screen is quite three-dimensional. Everything in the screen that is nearer than this is shifted to the left of that "centre", and thus everything behind the screen that is central to the building is shifted to the right of that centre. David, could we stick to discussing the photo because I'm not the slightest bit interested arguing about your misinterpretation of what my primary, secondary or tertiary oppose reasons are, or whether I was clear or not, and will simply unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, you were the one that was unclear. It's not my misinterpretation of anything. You misunderstood the original conversation preceding your vote, you were unclear about what you felt was wrong with the perspective and you were unclear that the perspective was the primary reason for your oppose. A question is not in itself a reason for a vote - it is a question. Don't try to turn it around like I've misunderstood. This might not be 'about the photo' but it's important that we clear up the misunderstandings before we can actually get to the root issue which is the photo. It would be nice if you actually acknowledged you were unclear, but I suppose that might be a bridge too far. As for the image being central to the rood screen, it may not be perfectly aligned with the camera (it's entirely possible that the rood screen itself is slightly warped or misaligned - it wouldn't be the first time that an architectural feature was not perfectly straight), but it is near enough - within a couple of cm I would estimate. With angles of view this wide, a few cm can make quite a big difference to horizontal lines. The question is not whether it is perfectly aligned. I never said it was, I only said that I aligned the camera with the rood screen as opposed to the choir. The question is simply whether it was more correct to align with the rood screen, or the choir/ceiling. My argument has always been that to move the PoV to the left and centre with the choir, the rood screen would be significantly skewed, and since the rood screen is the subject and focus of the image, it would not be beneficial to have it skewed. Not just a few pixels like you've measured in the image above, but probably visibly skewed. That's the reality of its geometry nothing you've said above can change that. So given the reality of this scene, there are only two possible options that I can see: 1) The image is remains as it is. 2) The PoV is shifted to the left and rood screen becomes skewed, along with the floor tiles. Can you honestly say that you'd prefer the latter? Or are you simply saying that the geometry of this interior makes it impossible to feature because of the flawed geometry? I'd like to hear how you think this problem can be solved. Diliff (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- David, I stopped reading after the first sentence. I stand by my opening statement, which was not a question. All the evidence suggests you were not central to the rood screen nor the cathedral, and for an image like this with arches and curves meeting a central point, it matters. I can see your were out of alignment on thumbnail, so this isn't a pixel-peeping complaint. Unwatching now. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence was clearly 'formed as a question', even if it wasn't, grammatically, literally a question. If you're saying you don't understand what someone has said or done, it follows that you're inviting them to explain their reasons to you. Unless of course you just like the sound of your fingers on the keyboard and you aren't interested in finding out what it is that you didn't understand. That's therefore not a reason for a vote or a critique. Whether you decide to read this or not, I want it very clear that I think you're being completely disingenuous about that. You honestly expect me to believe that you can see it was out of alignment with the rood screen in the thumbnail? Absolute rubbish. It's a matter of at most 20-30 pixels at full size. The thumbnail is 3300% smaller than the original size. The skewing of the rood screen is therefore less than a pixel across the thumbnail. You might think you can see it but perception is often wrong. Furthermore, whether I was slightly misaligned against the central point of the rood screen is also not the point you were originally making nor the reason why you opposed. You were saying you think I should be aligned with the choir/ceiling. Whether I'm misaligned against the rood screen is completely irrelevant to that original argument. I think you've simply brought this distraction up to discredit my counterargument against yours. "Since you weren't perfectly aligned against the rood screen, your argument against mine is therefore wrong" seems to be the gist of it. Diliff (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just to defend Colin a bit, I did notice the misalignment on the thumbnail too Diliff. I don't think he is unfair (but honestly, I think we've said it all on that matter). - Benh (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- But Benh, even if it was visible in the thumbnail, is it even important to this discussion? The skewing of the rood screen is something correctable and I'd be happy to correct it if it was going to change anything for this discussion. The issue from the start has never been whether the rood screen is perfectly rectangular, the issue has been whether the PoV of the camera should have been shifted to the left. Colin said very early that he believes his reasons for opposing are not correctable. Therefore the skewing of the rood screen is apparently irrelevant to his argument. It seems like he brought that up as a distraction from the original discussion. Diliff (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just to defend Colin a bit, I did notice the misalignment on the thumbnail too Diliff. I don't think he is unfair (but honestly, I think we've said it all on that matter). - Benh (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence was clearly 'formed as a question', even if it wasn't, grammatically, literally a question. If you're saying you don't understand what someone has said or done, it follows that you're inviting them to explain their reasons to you. Unless of course you just like the sound of your fingers on the keyboard and you aren't interested in finding out what it is that you didn't understand. That's therefore not a reason for a vote or a critique. Whether you decide to read this or not, I want it very clear that I think you're being completely disingenuous about that. You honestly expect me to believe that you can see it was out of alignment with the rood screen in the thumbnail? Absolute rubbish. It's a matter of at most 20-30 pixels at full size. The thumbnail is 3300% smaller than the original size. The skewing of the rood screen is therefore less than a pixel across the thumbnail. You might think you can see it but perception is often wrong. Furthermore, whether I was slightly misaligned against the central point of the rood screen is also not the point you were originally making nor the reason why you opposed. You were saying you think I should be aligned with the choir/ceiling. Whether I'm misaligned against the rood screen is completely irrelevant to that original argument. I think you've simply brought this distraction up to discredit my counterargument against yours. "Since you weren't perfectly aligned against the rood screen, your argument against mine is therefore wrong" seems to be the gist of it. Diliff (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- David, I stopped reading after the first sentence. I stand by my opening statement, which was not a question. All the evidence suggests you were not central to the rood screen nor the cathedral, and for an image like this with arches and curves meeting a central point, it matters. I can see your were out of alignment on thumbnail, so this isn't a pixel-peeping complaint. Unwatching now. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hope I don't make things worse by popping into the discussion. It's a similar issue as Jebulon's nom below. When things are not entirely symmetrical, one has to make choice as to which parts shall be centered in priority. Stepping a bit on the left and rotating the viewing direction slightly to the right achieves this I think. You don't trade off much in the process. Here it seems you were centered on the floor pattern (at the cost of loosing the alignement between the roodscreen and the choir ceiling). - Benh (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying but I don't think you're right that you don't trade off much. It would significantly skew the horizontal lines of the rood screen and the floor tiles. It's a shame that I can't go back and easily demonstrate just what a difference it would make - we can only discuss this hypothetically. But I just know from experience that with wide angles of view like this, even being a small distance away from centre really messes with the symmetry and horizontal lines in the scene. Sometimes the central aisle of a church is offset by seating that wasn't arranged carefully. Sometimes I notice this at the time, sometimes I fail to notice. Either way, it causes trouble either for the symmetry of the seating, or of the architecture. The effect is real, and although you're right that you have to choice the priority, the effect means you lose symmetry of the overall scene. Pixel peepers on Commons will not let you get away with it. ;-) This is a perfect example here. In the 'real world', nobody would crucify an image for being slightly asymmetrical like it is here. Diliff (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The skewing can always be perspective fixed and I think it would be hard to tell something is going on. And my statement was a bit misleading : it's stepping to the left only (because alignment depends only on the position). No rotating the viewing direction, and thus no losing parallelism. The issue would be on the floor, but IMO it's minor compared to the rest: that's the tradeoff. But I agree with you it's only hypothetical. Let's save this as a bet and who is right gets a beer if the opportunity arises. - Benh (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying but I don't think you're right that you don't trade off much. It would significantly skew the horizontal lines of the rood screen and the floor tiles. It's a shame that I can't go back and easily demonstrate just what a difference it would make - we can only discuss this hypothetically. But I just know from experience that with wide angles of view like this, even being a small distance away from centre really messes with the symmetry and horizontal lines in the scene. Sometimes the central aisle of a church is offset by seating that wasn't arranged carefully. Sometimes I notice this at the time, sometimes I fail to notice. Either way, it causes trouble either for the symmetry of the seating, or of the architecture. The effect is real, and although you're right that you have to choice the priority, the effect means you lose symmetry of the overall scene. Pixel peepers on Commons will not let you get away with it. ;-) This is a perfect example here. In the 'real world', nobody would crucify an image for being slightly asymmetrical like it is here. Diliff (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, you were the one that was unclear. It's not my misinterpretation of anything. You misunderstood the original conversation preceding your vote, you were unclear about what you felt was wrong with the perspective and you were unclear that the perspective was the primary reason for your oppose. A question is not in itself a reason for a vote - it is a question. Don't try to turn it around like I've misunderstood. This might not be 'about the photo' but it's important that we clear up the misunderstandings before we can actually get to the root issue which is the photo. It would be nice if you actually acknowledged you were unclear, but I suppose that might be a bridge too far. As for the image being central to the rood screen, it may not be perfectly aligned with the camera (it's entirely possible that the rood screen itself is slightly warped or misaligned - it wouldn't be the first time that an architectural feature was not perfectly straight), but it is near enough - within a couple of cm I would estimate. With angles of view this wide, a few cm can make quite a big difference to horizontal lines. The question is not whether it is perfectly aligned. I never said it was, I only said that I aligned the camera with the rood screen as opposed to the choir. The question is simply whether it was more correct to align with the rood screen, or the choir/ceiling. My argument has always been that to move the PoV to the left and centre with the choir, the rood screen would be significantly skewed, and since the rood screen is the subject and focus of the image, it would not be beneficial to have it skewed. Not just a few pixels like you've measured in the image above, but probably visibly skewed. That's the reality of its geometry nothing you've said above can change that. So given the reality of this scene, there are only two possible options that I can see: 1) The image is remains as it is. 2) The PoV is shifted to the left and rood screen becomes skewed, along with the floor tiles. Can you honestly say that you'd prefer the latter? Or are you simply saying that the geometry of this interior makes it impossible to feature because of the flawed geometry? I'd like to hear how you think this problem can be solved. Diliff (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I only mentioned the lighting/dark-screen issue to defend Jebulon -- just because you photographed something accurately doesn't make it a great photograph from a lighting perspective, so his oppose is justifiable and you can't dismiss it by saying "that's how it was". You seem very certain that you are central on the rood screen. Well I've taken a grid to it (Using Irfan view's selection with a grid-of-four) and can quite clearly see you are slightly to the right of centre on the screen, which also explains the misalignment with the building behind. It might not be possible to everything aligned to the pixel, but this is quite far out. To see this, make a vertical line where the top of the archway is. It is handy that the screen is quite three-dimensional. Everything in the screen that is nearer than this is shifted to the left of that "centre", and thus everything behind the screen that is central to the building is shifted to the right of that centre. David, could we stick to discussing the photo because I'm not the slightest bit interested arguing about your misinterpretation of what my primary, secondary or tertiary oppose reasons are, or whether I was clear or not, and will simply unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- If your main oppose reason was a question referring to previous discussion and the secondary reason was the only part that actually had any critique in it, then you weren't being very clear with your oppose. :-) As I said over and over though, things are not 'out of alignment' photographically. This is how the building is. Furthermore, the ceiling is a nice addition to the scene but it is not the subject, and is absolute symmetry a vital aspect of the image? If so, why? I know aesthetics play a part in any FP, but really? You're more concerned about slight misalignment that was a deliberate architectural decision than the fantastic detail present in the actual subject I'm trying to present? This is not a vacuum cleaner under the stairs. A vacuum cleaner is a household item that you can present from any angle with any lighting you choose and of course we should be less forgiving for a poorly lit object like that, but this is an interior where I have no control over the lighting (apart from what time of day/year I choose to visit). Yes, a different time of day could result in different lighting conditions, but we're only guessing - it could well be worse, not better. In any case, lighting was never part of your oppose reasons at all. Are you saying you've added it to the list now? :-) I just think that sometimes you have to present a building as it is, warts and all. The lighting and misalignment is representative of the interior. Diliff (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, actually my main oppose reason is the issue I started with -- that things are out of alignment. And this makes it harder to crop as it is quite noticeable that you have more of one side of the ceiling than the other. David, I said I thought you'd probably captured the screen's darkness correctly here, but that doesn't mean that that is an optimal result photographically. If I shoot my vaccum cleaner in the under stairs cupboard with the light off, then I've got an accurately dark photo of a dark subject with little detail. I suggested there may be other times of day when one could shoot this screen with greater relative light on it compared to the background. Maybe not. Sometimes one has to accept a subject has imperfections that prevent FP. It is still a fine photo and fantastic detail. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your main oppose reason is that the top of the arch is too distorted... but you don't think it's correctable? It is totally correctable simply by cropping that part of the image out, as I said above. The top of the arch is not a fundamental part of the scene - it's the rood screen that is the subject, and the rood screen is not significantly distorted. As for the darkness issue, yes, maybe I'm never going to get everyone to agree on how the image should look. You (and I) say that it's appropriately represented in terms of brightness and shouldn't be artificially brightened, Jebulon insists he can't see it and Benh thinks its a bit dark. I can't brighten it and not brighten it. Certainly yes, nominations can get messy and changes to the composition should be reviewed. Perhaps you're right that I should have pinged the existing reviewers. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't share Jebulon's opinion that an FPC shouldn't be improved during candidacy but it can make the voting messy, especially when you make huge changes to the crop/projection (one really should ping earlier reviewers rather than assume they will revisit old reviews they've made). We should certainly aim to get it right but I don't think David is generally sloppy in that way or this time. Opposing on a correctable aspect isn't forbidden, David, since you may refuse to make the required correction, and we may all then have to agree to disagree. Opposing for some minor CA flaw would IMO be rude. I don't think my main oppose reason is correctable, though, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Much improved at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Neutral It's slightly offset because of your position so I'm afraid you can't really fix it, but the current crop does a good job at hidding that. I agree that the roodscreen is a bit dark. <offtopic>As per my recent comments, I think a photo doesn't necessarily have to be viewed at 100% to start to enjoy it. It's an additional benefit (and good encyclopedic feat) that we can zoom in and discover details, and that may be a reason which separates a good picture from an FP one.</offtopic> - Benh (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't need to view at 100% to enjoy the image, but you do have to view it at better than a thumbnail IMO, before you judge that it's too dark. Many subjects look too dark in thumbnail but are correctly exposed when viewed at a larger size. That was the point I was making to Jebulon. It is a dark rood screen, but I think it's correctly exposed in this situation because the rood screen is backlit due to the brighter choir area. If you artificially brighten it too much, you end up with a scene that looks too HDRish and the wood no longer looks realistic. As for the offset, I don't think my position is offset at all. It's the cathedral choir that is offset. This is very common and is apparently to represent Christ's head slumped to the side as represented in the crucifixion. It's an intentional architectural decision. It screws with symmetry and makes it look like I've made a silly mistake with my positioning, but I can't position my viewpoint along the axis of both the nave and the choir at the same time, so one of them inevitably appears offset. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I'm not talking about thumbnail viewing of course ;) For the roodscreen, it's hard to say. Your records speak for you, and I do trust you (most of the time). It's possibly well exposed here, but I can't help but think I would see it brighter because my vision will accommodate the darkness when focusing on the roodscreen. Anyways, my neutrality is because of the doubt (I don't mind opposing as you know). Sometimes you just can't please everyone, and it's good to stuck to your own judgement too. And from time to time, seeing red on your noms must get you topics for dinner talks ;-) ("whaat who dared oppose you David? Stevie Wonder?") - Benh (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would consider brightening it slightly, but Jebulon has dropped in his oppose and then failed to respond further, so I have no idea why he thinks its too dark and whether a certain level of brightening would resolve the issue or not. I still personally think that it's perfectly visible, but supposed to look dark. It's funny because in Code's recent nomination, he complained that the colour of the wood looked abnormal. That's precisely because the side in shadow was too bright (IMO). Diliff (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I'm not talking about thumbnail viewing of course ;) For the roodscreen, it's hard to say. Your records speak for you, and I do trust you (most of the time). It's possibly well exposed here, but I can't help but think I would see it brighter because my vision will accommodate the darkness when focusing on the roodscreen. Anyways, my neutrality is because of the doubt (I don't mind opposing as you know). Sometimes you just can't please everyone, and it's good to stuck to your own judgement too. And from time to time, seeing red on your noms must get you topics for dinner talks ;-) ("whaat who dared oppose you David? Stevie Wonder?") - Benh (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't need to view at 100% to enjoy the image, but you do have to view it at better than a thumbnail IMO, before you judge that it's too dark. Many subjects look too dark in thumbnail but are correctly exposed when viewed at a larger size. That was the point I was making to Jebulon. It is a dark rood screen, but I think it's correctly exposed in this situation because the rood screen is backlit due to the brighter choir area. If you artificially brighten it too much, you end up with a scene that looks too HDRish and the wood no longer looks realistic. As for the offset, I don't think my position is offset at all. It's the cathedral choir that is offset. This is very common and is apparently to represent Christ's head slumped to the side as represented in the crucifixion. It's an intentional architectural decision. It screws with symmetry and makes it look like I've made a silly mistake with my positioning, but I can't position my viewpoint along the axis of both the nave and the choir at the same time, so one of them inevitably appears offset. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Essay came out, didn't read but something like this I had in my mind. I suppose you want to evade strong light and move to right side. Lack of Jesus head...a personal massage you probably saw back home. --Mile (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
