Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kazan church.jpg

All Religions Temple

Reason: At first glance this is just a normal church, but look closer and one can see that it is combo between a church and a mosque, with both religions represented in the overall design of the building.
Articles this image appears in: Kazan
Creator: Maarten]

Support as nominator --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Serious perspective distortion, and subject is cut off on both left and right.--ragesoss (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ragesoss, plus it seems over saturated and there is lots of wierd artifacting going on (even visible at thumb size) Noodle snacks (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The power lines are also unfortunately placed. Would support a better picture of this place in an instant though, especially if there was an article on the actual building rather than just the city it's in. It's a great looking building. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ragesoss. Magnificent building deserves a magnificent photo. Edit helps but can't stop it from being cut off at the sides. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know which I dislike most: pincushion distortion, or "fixing pincushion distortion" distortion. Great building - I'd love to see another photo of it as an FP. On a side note, is it ethical to just clone out the wires? I mean, I understand it makes it seem like a better image, but it's not true to life. After re-reading (ok, quickly skimming) the criteria, I didn't notice any blaring comment on editing to this degree. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "pincushion distortion distortion"? The pincushion distortion was fairly mild. I think you are referring to the stretching that is caused by correcting such an extreme degree of perspective distortion. Mfield (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you just repeated it for me. Or, "fixing pincushion distortion" distortion. i.e. the distortion caused by fixing already-existing distortion. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am said was that you cannot see any distortion from fixing pincushion distortion (unless you are referring to a different issue than the 'stretching'). That is the result of correcting perspective distortion and they are not image distortions per se, they are the natural result of trying to view something that tall from that close. You would see the same distortions with a tilt/shift, assuming you could even shift it that far. It's not part of correcting the image as much as it is part of the original problem. Pinchushion distortion is the distortion caused by a flaw in the lens design that results in the horizontal and vertical straight lines becoming curved, perspective distortion is the result of standing too close and tilting the camera upwards. They are distinct issues. Mfield (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definately interesting building but regretful oppose, also on the dome with the blue and white chequered pieces on theres a star of david, indicating it could be a synagogue too --Thanks, Hadseys 11:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The distortion is very visible in both versions. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Second mcshadypl and Jjron. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]