Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:141227 Berliner Dom.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:141227 Berliner Dom.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 21:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
- Info The west front of the Berlin Cathedral in the early morning. Behind it you can see the TV tower ("Fernsehturm"). All by me. -- Code (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Code (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support ugly building, great picture! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Good and nice.....especially the antenna behind makes the contrast between ancient and modern--LivioAndronico talk 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ancient? Not really... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1747 for me is ancient Martin --LivioAndronico talk 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- LivioAndronico. Delete 1747, insert 1905! They honestly didn't refrain from tearing down a church built by Schinkel (!) just to replace it with this whilhelmine monstrosity...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Martin: Livio is coming from
27th37th century :) --Laitche (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A Lightroom 6 and Mediawiki metadata viewer discussion
|
---|
|
- Support --XRay talk 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC) (BTW: There is a workaround for the EXIF data using the tool exiftool. Please ask if you need the parameters.)
- Support. Very nicely captured. Although why such a tight crop at the bottom? Did you remove some distracting elements from the foreground? Otherwise it feels a little unbalanced but not a big problem. Diliff (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Diliff. No, I did not remove anything. The crop comes from the perspective correction. I will try to give a little more space at the bottom when I'm back at my computer tomorrow. I'm saving up for the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II to avoid these problems in the future but I think this will still take some time. --Code (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why perspective correction would have resulted in a tight crop at the bottom though. Perspective correction usually has no significant effect on the crop at the top and bottom. It usually only affects the sides because they need to be distorted outwards to straighten the inward leaning verticals. I personally think stitching is a much better option than a tilt-shift lens, but if you think it's a better option for you, great and I look forward to seeing what you do it with. :-) Diliff (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hm. If you want to preserve the aspect ratio then perspective correction affects also the bottom, or am I wrong? But as I said - I will give it a try tomorrow. Concerning the TS-lens: Shifting is not the only thing you can do with it ;-) I think it's a very interesting photographic toy in many respects. We will see. --Code (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you can't correct the perspective without affecting the aspect ratio. Correcting the verticals increases the height of the image because it increases the distortion. If you have to perserve the aspect ratio then yes I guess you have to crop something, but that's not a requirement of perspective correction, that's a choice. As for the TS lens, yes I suppose there is also the ability to shift the plane of focus which stitching cannot do, but I don't think the advantage of this is worth the cost of the lens, but that's just my opinion. :-) Also, I just noticed that there's a star shaped white patch just above the doorway. It doesn't look like it's part of the scene. Do you know what it is? Diliff (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the star is part of the christmas decoration (if we mean the same thing). The picture was taken at december, 27th. --Code (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but I'm still confused by two things about it. I see a darker shadow on either side of the star, which means that it is being lit up by the two flood lights. But it is completely white without any texture, and yet everything else around it like the white signs below it are much darker, but they should be lit up similarly to the star, I would expect. The star seems to be 'cut out' and replaced with a white shape. It seems strange. Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing though. Diliff (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the star is illuminated from the inside. Regarding the crop, isn't it always a balance between losing more on the side or losing more on the bottom? — Julian H.✈ 10:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's illuminated from the inside though (although I could be wrong), because it doesn't have any lens stars or light bleeding like every other source of light in the scene does - it's razor sharp. When you say "isn't it always a balance between losing more on the side or losing more on the bottom?", I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean specifically during perspective correction? No, (proper) perspective correction follows a mathematically precise formula. However, to do it properly, the software would need to know the focal length/angle of view to know how to apply the distortion (because a 17mm focal length image needs different perspective correction to a 50mm image). If you do perspective correction manually, you can approximate these calculations but it's largely guesswork. This is an example of mine to prove/explain what I mean. Here is a hand-held panorama before and after perspective correction. I've left it uncropped so you can see how the boundaries of the image are shifted. And now here is the cropped before and after photo so you can see where the crop has removed part of the image. You can see that it is only the left and right sides, not the top and bottom that have been affected by the perspective correction. It isn't a choice between cropping the sides or the bottom. There isn't an 'alternative' way to correct the perspective. Diliff (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The star was indeed illuminated from the inside. I'm very sure about that. --Code (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I believe you then. It just looks strange to me. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- What I meant is that the result of the mathematical operation of correcting the perspective is (roughly) a trapezoid, and cropping the trapezoid to a rectangle necessarily means cutting something off. Whether that's the bottom or the side is up to the author. — Julian H.✈ 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well ok, yes technically that's true but in practice, because of the shape of the trapezoid, you have to crop 3 or 4 pixels from the top or bottom for every pixel you save on the sides so it's rarely practical. It's much better to leave enough space around the sides so that you don't have to compromise anything during perspective correction. In this case, I can't see why the crop at the bottom should be so tight, there's plenty of space on the sides. Diliff (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Info @Diliff: New version with different crop uploaded. What do you think about it? --Code (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Much better, it has 'room to breathe' at the bottom now. Diliff (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support TV tower is unavoidable for this angle. And maybe the clone is allowed? in this case :) --Laitche (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, impressing. Are you going to upload it as a derivative? I would like not to replace this one because the TV tower is somehow part of the arrangement (as Livio said). --Code (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem :) --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! --Code (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 07:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support The wider crop at the bottom is MUCH better. Now I can support with clear conscience :) --Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings