Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Place Royale, Vieux-Québec, Quebec ville, Canada. Projection panoramique à 360 degrés 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Place Royale, Vieux-Québec, Quebec ville, Canada. Projection panoramique à 360 degrés 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2023 at 15:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful clouds, but unfortunately overexposed. For a 360 panorama, I think it's OK to have a little overexposure on the side with the sun, but here I see blown-out clouds all over. Your settings are 1/20s at f/22 or EV = 13⅓ at ISO 100, which is just letting in too much light; in situations with very white clouds I would expose to an EV of at least 14, more often closer to 15. The slight increase in noise that would result from needing to lift the shadows is a very worthy tradeoff. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment there are blurred areas around the base of the statue, some dust spots, CA and a stitching error, I have marked the CA and stitching error with notes, fixable? --Virtual-Pano (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak support - ABAL1412🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺 (talk ☭) 09:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- Oppose
Lens choice distorts and magnifies foreground which doesn't work.Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- what are you talking about Charles? This is a 360 pano. If you view it properly nothing is distorted. - Benh (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hadn't noticed it was a 360 deg. Should be mentioned in info. There are stitching errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. ~Moheen (keep talking) 10:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles, unfortunately. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- Weak support - I can see the points made by Virtual-Pano, but the distortion does not appear to be an issue. When looking through the 360 viewer, the image appears sound. The resolution is high and sharpness is good. A lot of effort went into this.--Peulle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I like this panorama, but why don't you fix the issues noted by Virtual-Pano, and also the vertical line in the sky between the left and right ends of the photo (of course I'm viewing the photo in 3D, but that's the best way I can identify where I'm talking about - it's to the left of the leftmost building in 2D)? It looks to me like there are also 6 or more dust spots in the cloud above the rightmost building and one in the cloud above the building perpendicular to it. I'm seeing another possible one in a cloud above the red roof. I think this is a valuable photo and a possible FP but still needs some more work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for all the feedback, both negative and positive. I believe the points regarding the sky's overexposure are valid. Unfortunately, the RAW files are on a hard drive that's currently with my ex, so I won't be able to correct this image. I greatly appreciate all the upvotes and downvotes alike. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
