Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral East Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Laon Cathedral East Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 06:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Disturbing foreground DoF problem, see notes, however I dont care because the main subject is in focus --The Photographer (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this was because I selected a lens that would provide extra detail of the stained glass, but sacrificing DoF. It's a stitched image of about 100 photos using a focal length of about 200mm so the blur is unavoidable unfortunately. But look at the resolution (60 megapixels) and detail. The area of the image in focus is extremely sharp. The only reason I included the altar and seating in the composition is because without it, it would feel unbalanced. But they are just accessories to the main purpose of the photo which is the stained glass. Diliff (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a regular view of the choir. It's all sharp and in focus but obviously the detail is not so good (it's still pretty good though). Diliff (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your comment, I do not know what lens you choose, however, the depth of field can be scaled manually (maybe you could explain more about that). I've seen pictures of you perfect and I do not understand why this can not be. --The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'll explain in more detail. There are two reasons why it is not possible to get complete DoF with this image. One, it is the angle of view. With a wide angle of view, you can use a focal length like 50mm and take (for example) a panorama with 5 rows and 5 columns. The equivalent focal length of this panorama might be about 15mm. You could get almost everything in focus from infinity to about 1-2 metres. But if you don't want (or can't) use a wide angle of view, you must get further back and use a lens like the 200mm that I used in this image. A 200mm lens has a much smaller DoF. Even at f/16 or more (things will start to become less sharp after f/11), it cannot get everything in focus. Exactly how much focus you can get will depend on how far away you are but it will probably never be more than a few metres of sharp focus for an interior. So, you might ask: If you can get better DoF with a 50mm lens, why didn't you do that? Well, it's because of the second reason. With a very wide angle view, you have a lot of distortion at the edges. This is usually acceptable for most interiors because you want to see the wide view and it's the only way to see a lot of it all at once in a single image. But for this view, a wide angle view would be from very close to the glass and the altar would be in the way, you wouldn't be able to see much of it, and the glass at the top would be very distorted. So for this interior, I chose to get further back so I could see as much of the glass as possible (the other end of the room) and this introduced a compromise: Less DoF but more detail and less distortion. Hopefully that helps you understand why it was necessary for this photo. Diliff (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detalied explain, I underestand you --The Photographer (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'll explain in more detail. There are two reasons why it is not possible to get complete DoF with this image. One, it is the angle of view. With a wide angle of view, you can use a focal length like 50mm and take (for example) a panorama with 5 rows and 5 columns. The equivalent focal length of this panorama might be about 15mm. You could get almost everything in focus from infinity to about 1-2 metres. But if you don't want (or can't) use a wide angle of view, you must get further back and use a lens like the 200mm that I used in this image. A 200mm lens has a much smaller DoF. Even at f/16 or more (things will start to become less sharp after f/11), it cannot get everything in focus. Exactly how much focus you can get will depend on how far away you are but it will probably never be more than a few metres of sharp focus for an interior. So, you might ask: If you can get better DoF with a 50mm lens, why didn't you do that? Well, it's because of the second reason. With a very wide angle view, you have a lot of distortion at the edges. This is usually acceptable for most interiors because you want to see the wide view and it's the only way to see a lot of it all at once in a single image. But for this view, a wide angle view would be from very close to the glass and the altar would be in the way, you wouldn't be able to see much of it, and the glass at the top would be very distorted. So for this interior, I chose to get further back so I could see as much of the glass as possible (the other end of the room) and this introduced a compromise: Less DoF but more detail and less distortion. Hopefully that helps you understand why it was necessary for this photo. Diliff (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your comment, I do not know what lens you choose, however, the depth of field can be scaled manually (maybe you could explain more about that). I've seen pictures of you perfect and I do not understand why this can not be. --The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a regular view of the choir. It's all sharp and in focus but obviously the detail is not so good (it's still pretty good though). Diliff (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this was because I selected a lens that would provide extra detail of the stained glass, but sacrificing DoF. It's a stitched image of about 100 photos using a focal length of about 200mm so the blur is unavoidable unfortunately. But look at the resolution (60 megapixels) and detail. The area of the image in focus is extremely sharp. The only reason I included the altar and seating in the composition is because without it, it would feel unbalanced. But they are just accessories to the main purpose of the photo which is the stained glass. Diliff (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Diliff (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A textbook example of the appropriate use of tonemapping to reveal details in the very bright windows. In my personal opinion the pillars and walls on the sides should not have been processed as aggressively (they look almost like bas relief instead of actual 3D pillars and walls), but it is still pretty good. Dllu (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support The tradeoff paid off. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support wow, even by your standards! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support Does not must need all of the subjects in focus, obviously :) --Laitche (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Question Why didn't you crop out the (out of focus) chairs ? Anyway, very nice main subject for one of my favourite gothic cathedrals of France. Worth a visit, if you don't know.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't crop them because, just as landscapes need the horizon for a sense of perspective, I felt the chairs were important for context and compositional balance. What do you mean worth a visit? This cathedral or another? I did visit this one already, obviously. ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
