Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ashmolean
I took this image myself at the end of 2005. I feel it is a very clear and atmospheric view of the facade of this wonderful building and therefore that it meets the standards to become a featured image.
- Nominate and support. - Newton2 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately there's a lot of distortion. Also, a farther photo would probably be more encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The perspective distortion doesn't bother me. I don't think most viewers really notice it, since it applies to normal vision too. (i.e., if you look up at a building from below, the sides converge as you look up, whether you're using a camera or not.) However this would be more encyclopedic if it included the entire building, rather than the severe crop we see here. -- moondigger 14:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Um, while what you say is true it is also not true: Your FOV is not nearly as wide as the camera, and were you to stand far enough back to see that much of the building, you would not see anywhere as much perspective distortion. If I ever walked around and saw a buildings that looked like that, I'd likely head to a doctor. :)
- I can see an entire building from right in front of it; I just have to move my head around to see all the detail. The sides of the building still recede as I look up, but the effect is not as apparent since I'm not seeing both sides in the same 'frame.' However most people with normal vision have a wider FOV than any rectilinear camera lens; it's just indistinct and blurry on the periphery. In any case, perspective distortion is a result of differing distances from subject to eye or lens, not FOV. In truth the FOV has no effect on whether the "distortion" is occurring or not; it only masks it by cropping (literally, by not showing as much "image" at one time) at longer focal lengths. We are both saying essentially the same thing, but coming at it from different perspectives.
- Um, while what you say is true it is also not true: Your FOV is not nearly as wide as the camera, and were you to stand far enough back to see that much of the building, you would not see anywhere as much perspective distortion. If I ever walked around and saw a buildings that looked like that, I'd likely head to a doctor. :)
- The point remains that most people (non-photographers) do not notice or comment on perspective distortion in photos of buildings, unless it is particularly severe. For images like this one, I have only ever heard comments about it on photography forums -- especially for mild wide-angle photos like this one. -- moondigger 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Distracting perspective distortion. --Gmaxwell 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. screws with your eyes --82.31.112.110 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)- erm.. that was me, i wasnt logged in Childzy talk contribs 10:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Neither building nor photo are especially out of the ordinary. --Philopedia 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid I cannot agree with you when you say that the building is nothing special - even if the photograph is not as good as it could be. --Newton2 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It's okay, but seems a little slanted. Cab02 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted --Fir0002 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)