Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg

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

Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg, featured[edit]

Arc de Triomphe, in Paris

  •  Info Of course :) this is a 4x3 mosaic. I used a Canon EF-S 17-55mm at 55mm, f/8.0, 1.6sec and ISO 100. The original picture was much larger, but my target was something which fits into a 5000x5000 square with great sharpness, hence the actual resolution. I oversharpened the larger version (but not so much) and then downsampled it so even the little details remain visible enough. I'll update the description page tonight. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to accept the compliment, but I can't :) It seems you believe I used the 18-55mm... the 17-55mm is a totally different one, and it is a topnotch lense !! The best or one of the best in this focal range for sure... (see links on my user page for reviews). That said, it's certainly possible to get similar results from the 18-55 -- Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support --Thermos 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Pumpmeup 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great colors. Rocket000 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Jaga, sharpness is really unbelievable! Great work, and thanks for sharing. --Nattfodd 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - The detail on the arch is amazing and I'll probably support this picture later. There are some issues though: (i)I also don't like the perspective very much, the monument seems to be leaning to the right; (ii) What about the strict French law on monument pictures? (iii) The picture won't pass with this noisy sky!... Alvesgaspar 08:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support - After the improvements. Great photo! - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the perspective, I chose to have the vertical lines converging slightly, so it looks natural enough. I could choose another anchor point and another anchor vertical line. What would you suggest, so I can give it a try ? I'll fix the noise in the sky tonight (I used wrong parameters when sharpening this one...). There is no copyright problem, as Semhur mentionned below. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the perspective, nothing wrong with the converging verticals but I would move the anchor vertical line to the longer edge of the building (or slighly right of it?). Like it is, the edge at right is almost parallel to margin. Alvesgaspar 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question And what about damned French night light copyright law?--Beyond silence 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Detail is excellent. About the french law, it's not a problem here, because the Arc de Triomphe is two hundred years old. Sémhur 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful mood and colours. Good sharpness. Bravo Ben! --Simonizer 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (for now) Good point of view and very good lightning. Excellent idea to make a mosaic which brings the level of details of a medium format camera, but… there are perspective problems and heavy lens distortions in barrel (for sure the use of the EF-S lens, one of the worst of Canon, didn't help). One concrete example : at the right, just left of the Eiffel Tower, the first level of the building is curve and goes to the left and the upper level goes to the right. This picture needs a lot of work in order to correct these issues (that's the problem of making a mosaic of a too close subject) : you will have to correct the distortion of each photograph (see here) and after mounting the mosaic, the general perspective. Alternatively, as Alvesgaspar wrote, it would be also good to soften some parts of the sky which makes blurs. Sting 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. Hard to fix... It may be not only due to distorsion, but also to the fact that overlapping areas between pictures are very small, and then Hugin takes some liberty when warping pictures. I tried a restitch last night, which didn't give expected results, and I'll try another way when I can (hopefully by the end of this week)... Benh 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juste une information concernant l'objectif utilisé... ce n'est pas un EF-S 17-55 de base mais le 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM qui est un excellent objectif (voir les liens vers les tests sur la page de Benh)... Sanchezn 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oups ! Ah oui, ce n'est pas le 18-55 mais le 17-55 qui a été utilisé. Désolé. Mais à priori il a était réglé sur une focale de 17mm au vu des distorsions. Dommage. Sting 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Décidément je n'ai pas les yeux en face des trous !! Il serait alors bon d'essayer avec un autre soft parce que celui-ci fait àmha un travail catastrophique qui n'est pas digne de cette image. Sting 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ça n'est pas Hugin, Hugin utilise les Pano Tools, comme PT Gui (bien que maintenant, celui-ci a son propre moteur dans certain cas). En fait, comme les images ne se chevauchent que sur une petite zone, Hugin déforme l'image en ne donnant priorité que sur cette zone, et se fiche du reste. Les images du droite sont corrigé en priorité sur leur partie gauche, ça peut donner de mauvaises surprises, comme celle que tu as si bien remarqué. J'ai refait le collage hier, avec nouveau paramétrage, et je suis fiers de te dire que j'ai corrigé le problème (ainsi que les autres mentionnés dessus) ! J'ai demandé à sanchezn mon bêta testeur ;) de faire une dernière passe dessus, puis j'écraserai la présente version. Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : Btw, the picture is not categorized !
  •  Support now : The perspective is much better as well as the sky, the picture is now categorized (but I cleaned them as cat:Arc de Triomphe is a sub-cat of all the others so they were unnecessary). The barrel distortions in each single image from the mosaic are still well visible so the picture is not as great as it could (should ?) be, but the overall quality (and work it needed) makes me think it's a very good picture which deserves the Quality label. Sting 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright problem, I think. The building itself is too old for copyright and although in France claims have been made to copyright in lighting schemes (especially of the Eiffel Tower), this is not a copyright lighting scheme but a series of flood lamps. --MichaelMaggs 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Yes, no copyright problems for the building itself. As far as I know (I haven't checked the accuracy of what I'm going to say), night lightings aren't copyrighted either, unless they add a very artistic value to the rest. I think the "standard" lighting of Eiffel Tower (as seen on this pic) isn't copyrighted but the sparkling lights are. Benh 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This FAQ says that publishing night pictures of the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted. Normally, this picture isn't concerned as the eiffel tower is far from being the main subject, is show in half of its part, and because of this case law. Benh 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support MichaelMaggs 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support nice colours --Jeses 10:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info About copyright issues (again !). I just gave a call to the people in charge of Arc de Triomphe, and I've been confirmed that this picture is freely diffusable. Arc de Triomphe is in the public domain, lighting isn't copyrighted either (it seems to be very specific to the Eiffel Tower). The only thing that could have prevented such a picture to be diffused is the location from where it was taken. Some people might be interested to know that Pictures taken from the roundabout cannot be diffused (I don't understand why !! The more I dig into copyrights stuffs, the more I get lost...). Benh 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info About copyright issues (again and again !). People has to understand how this stuff works in France in order to a) not upload copyrighted material, b) stop asking each time the same questions about the legal validity of a photograph. The two most famous school cases are a) the Eiffel Tower by night because the lightning is operated by a commercial and private firm earning money from it's pictures (even if the building is public, that's why you can shoot it by day without problem) and b) the Pyramid at The Louvre (day or night) because the building is recent and considered an artistic work copyrighted by it's architect. This, as well as for some other buildings, applies only if the photograph pictures the building as main subject of the image. The striking (and quiet contradictory) example is the Pyramid which is so big that if you want to snap the main courtyard of The Louvre Palace, the Pyramid will occupy a big part of the picture. That's authorized as you can neither move out the Pyramid, nor find another POV for the courtyard without it. That's why this one is legally authorized, but I doubt this other one or that one are and should be deleted imo. For our example above, the Eiffel Tower is really a minimal element of the picture and obviously not the main subject, that's why the copyright on it's lightning can't apply here. About the Arc de Triomphe itself, of course it's an old building so no problem on this side and it's lightning isn't operated by a commercial firm in the contrary of the specific case of the Eiffel Tower. I hope it's clear enough so these questions about freedom of panorama and copyright law in France will not be asked each time a picture appears here. Sting 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.--Beyond silence 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the french government?? And I thought the US was messed up. Dori - Talk 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really wrong : as well as in other countries, recent artwork or firm / private creations are protected by copyright. What makes people usually think wrong about these two examples is that they are located in public places. Sting 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Arc_Triomphe.jpg&oldid=141879880"