Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dunedin Railway Station Full Exterior.jpg

Dunedin Railway Station

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2013 at 02:07:25 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Dunedin Railway Station, Dunedin
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Antilived

Support as nominator --Nikhil (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I can tell from other photos, the facade of this building is actually straight. If so, this distorted picture has no place in an encyclopedia in my opinion, not even in the article, let alone as a featured picture. 86.129.18.2 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highly distorted. Agree with above, not encyclopaedic at all. Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Diliff says in one of the nominations below, the distortion may have been unavoidable because it is a cylindrical projection and also it might have been the best possible position to capture the whole building straight-on. I agree with your view that it is distorted, but I disagree with your view that it is not at all encyclopaedic. Nikhil (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google image search prior to my comment, and many are indeed straight, so I don't think it's technically impossible (though a slight angle might be required). And, personally, I really don't think photographs distorting architecture belong in an encyclopaedia. It's supposed to be an accurate depiction of the subject, and not an artistic interpretation, no? Mattximus (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a version in Rectilinear projection. I'm a bit ambivalent since this image covers almost 120 degree horizontally and though the edges are straight the relative sizes of the elements are distorted. If you look at the Google street view you can see that it's actually not physically possible to step any further back, and your example is probably taken at the same spot as mine, just in a different projection :). --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I much prefer the alt, but I can see what you are saying about the distortion (especially the towers on each end). I'm wondering what happened to the top of the tower on the right in the alt? Very nice picture, and beautiful building. (Just random question: could someone start from the left take a picture straight on, then move to the right, take a picture, etc... stitch it together and have it without distortion? Is that possible?) Mattximus (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flag pole got cut off since it'd extend up much higher and I didn't shoot enough sky in the middle section to include the entire panorama. Your idea of taking a picture from multiple vantage points would be very difficult to achieve since all the pictures would have different vanishing points and would appear very unnatural. To make it look good you'd need to take many photos and only use a very narrow section in the middle of the frame, kinda like how a scanner works. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Whilst its good to see a original city railway station still around, in this case none of the effects and angles can make this bit of colonial slab distinguished. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]