Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg

File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg

•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk)
•  Support One of very few pictures here taken with a shift lens. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Logical, they cost too much! Good. :) Diti the penguin — 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But also, in this age with good panoramic stitching software and panoramic heads, there's little reason to use one for architectural photography IMO, unless you absolutely have to capture the image with a single exposure or you want to use the tilt/shift for creative DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment IMHO, it is overexposed, and thus displays a very harsh contrast. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The sky is stunning, the building may well appear over-exposed - or it may be that ashen, the foreground is (to me) incomplete. L-Bit (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true the generousity of the 19th century is partially lost today. Just on the left there is now an ugly bus station and the garden on the right adjoins a not less ugly footpath. Seee street view or this commons image. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant  Oppose. Perspective distortion is rather severe. Durova (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support 99of9 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Durova. --Karel (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality is high, and the use of shift lens is interesting, but the overall feeling I get is a normal picture, not exceptional. Hard light and not very appealing composition in the foreground detracts me from supporting. --S23678 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – The 24mm T/S really is exceptionally sharp and at f/13 the usual light fall-off is not too harsh. On the other hand there really are some composition issues in my opinion. I think the wide angle look cries for more depth, but the building is pretty much the only object standing out. --Ernie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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