Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Point Reyes Lighthouse Trail December 2016 017.jpg

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

File:Point Reyes Lighthouse Trail December 2016 017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2020 at 05:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Point Reyes Lighthouse Trail
I don't really see the horizon here and therefore no tilt. With the small heights and distances of ordinary landscape photographs, a curved horizon cannot be attributed to the curvature of the earth. Otherwise the earth would be much smaller. --Milseburg (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Milseburg: Actually, on second thought I think it's not mainly height that matters, but focal length. A perfectly rectilinear lens is designed to preserve straight lines, no matter what angle they are viewed from. So a hypothetical horizon that went on in both directions forever should appear as a straight line when photographed from any direction. Suppose our viewpoint is just 1 m off the ground. Then the horizon would appear to be 3.57 km away in all directions (source). If our lens has a 90-degree field of view, then we would expect a straight line 3.57 km away at its nearest point to be km away at the two sides of our frame. But the actual horizon is still only 3.57 km away at the two sides, so it will appear curved. Now, height still does matter to some extent. While the ratio between the actual horizon and the ideal horizon may always be , the vertical angle of approach determines how much the difference is magnified in angular terms. If the camera is at A, the ground below the camera is B, the actual horizon at the center of the frame is C, the actual horizon at the (wlog) left edge of the frame is D, and the ideal horizon at the left edge of the frame is E (i.e. the place where the tangent line at C intersects the plane that defines the left edge of the frame), then increasing will increase , assuming that the ratio is fixed. And increasing height will increase the vertical angle of approach, because the distance to the horizon increases slower than distance to the ground (namely, at the rate of the square root of height). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can really follow the discussion in English. I know how to calculate visibility. I just meant that you can't push a horizon bent in the ordinary photo onto the curvature of the earth's surface. Anyway, as I said, I can't see this problem here. --Milseburg (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Colours and light are very good, I really feel like walking on that path. --Aristeas (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Aristeas, I really like the composition. The light doesn't seem outstanding at first but I think the soft, subtle pastel colours are actually very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Milseburg --Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's a nice image but besides being sharp and with nice lighting, it doesn't shout to me as anything special that anyone on this trail couldn't have taken quickly. The colors and focus seem like a simple auto setting to me (not that this can't be good, but in this case, there are lots of green spots all over the world and if anyone could whip out a point-and-shoot and achieve something like this there's nothing special, if that makes sense), and the whites over in the top right mute the image. I wasn't going to leave an oppose until I looked at the composition of the trail: it's not center, and it's not hitting the right third, it's just sort of off-center. As a really personal preference, I would have preferred a lower camera angle and a little more of the mound on the left. I can appreciate the positioning of the shadows over the trail, though. Kingsif (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did spend quite a bit of time experimenting with this composition; you'll notice that in my series there are no fewer than 6 shots of this scene, each with slightly different framing and lighting, and I thought that this one was the best. The original crop included more of the mound at the left, but for me the extra bit at the far left was superfluous so I cropped it out. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was hard to oppose because it's nice, especially the lighting, so I thought I'd explain thoroughly. I agree it's probably the best of the images of that part of the trail, but I love the photo of the utility buildings :) Kingsif (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#California
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Point_Reyes_Lighthouse_Trail_December_2016_017.jpg&oldid=516531446"