Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg

File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 23:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. I've been going through some of my old images that are featured pictures on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons. This is actually one of my oldest images (2006), but I think it still stands up to scrutiny 8 years later. -- Diliff (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Impresive view and quality, wow. Imagine that others seek a palette to bite while passing the visual orgasm --The Photographer (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - Still going strong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jklamo (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment It is slightly tilted in CW direction Poco² 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is really, it's just that it was taken from a slightly off-centre position (the viewpoint from the church where I took the photo isn't perfectly in line with the building), which means that the doorway at the bottom isn't vertically aligned with the spire and gives the appearance of a tilt. I had a very close look and there seems to be a tiny amount of CW tilt (I measured it as 0.3 degrees), but that's only possible to notice if you are pixel peeping and aligning vertical lines against the edge of the screen, and I don't believe it's perceivable in regular viewing. The tilt that you are more likely to perceive is due to the visual illusion I mentioned above. Diliff (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Poco is right, but not the picture (please see note). And I don't think it is pixel peeping, as I noticed this even in thumbnail...--Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think you could have noticed the lean in the thumbnail though, realistically. As I said, I measured it as 0.3 degrees (and I double checked again in the area you noted). This translates to a total shift of 2 pixels from one side of the building to the other at thumbnail size. Unless you're looking at the thumbnail with a magnifying glass and pixel peeping the thumbnail, I honestly don't think you could perceive that lean. I'm not denying that the lean exists (it does), it's just too small to be perceptible in the thumbnail IMO. I still believe that what you are most likely seeing is the illusion caused by the off-centre composition. I'm happy to correct the shift though. I've uploaded a new image over the top. Diliff (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • You do not need super powers to see this simply with a humble TV Samsung UN105S9 how pc monitor--The Photographer (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • A lean of 0.3 degrees in a thumbnail with a width of 300 pixels though? How can you be sure that you're seeing an actual lean and not an illusion of a lean? Diliff (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Please read my message better. --The Photographer (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
              • OK, for me to understand your message better, I need to know what you mean by the word 'this'. By 'this', do you mean the lean that Jebulon was referring to, or do you mean the image itself? If the latter, then yes I agree, any monitor will probably work fine. ;-) I can read your message 100 times but it isn't inherently clear to me what you were trying to say! :-) Diliff (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Do not try to read my mesaje, just read it Master Yoda. What I'm trying to say, and perhaps in translation joke is lost. Much time analyzing images can cause, see errors where none exist. Like when we look at the sun too long time, you'll still watching the sun while you turn your eyes to otheraway. --The Photographer (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Ahhh, I see. So, what you're trying to say is that there is no spoon. ;-) Diliff (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • It is a combination of a visual and mental effect. I remember seeing a movie at the cinema with JJ who is also reviewing images QIC. He spent the entire film criticizing chromatic aberrations, vertical, blurs and trouble shooting. I stood in front of half the movie and I told him, just forget what you know and see with new eyes, like a child. Many times there are no such mistakes but after seeing so many mistakes, our mind becomes accustomed, she goes on autopilot. --The Photographer (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture