Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Castel del Monte

Castel del Monte

Reason: Quality+EV
Articles this image appears in: Castel del Monte and Apulia
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep thinking that the top of the building is bowed outwards, but as far as I can see everything is vertical - must be just an illusion. It does look rather odd though, and I can't help thinking that the perspective correction might be slightly overdone. It might be worth convevrting it to sRGB from Adobe RGB as well, since not all browsers display Adobe properly. Time3000 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried different versions of the picture, all with a different perspective correction, but this came out as the best. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I get the same impression (building bowing outwards.) Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs sRGB conversion; I have no idea what colour the stone is supposed to be. --mikaul^talk 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already converted the image from sRGB to Adobe RGB. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it doesn't make any sense to do that. Adobe RGB may be a wider gamut but converting from sRGB won't add more colour depth and might give you unwanted colour shifts. The default for web use (and therefore Wikipedia FPs) is sRGB; always best to work in Adobe RGB and convert to that for web use. It's a "lowest common denominator" thing that won't improve colour but will allow everyone to see the same colours, regardless of what browser or program settings they use. --mikaul^talk 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to do so, so I did. I'll reverse the edit. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been some misunderstanding somewhere, because all uploaded versions are Adobe RGB. Maybe whoever originally advised you to convert profiles meant to say Adobe RGB > sRGB... --mikaul^talk 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean to sRGB and I think that's what my post said(?) - but sorry for any misunderstanding. Adobe's not really consistent between Paintshop, Gimp, firefox, etc. so sRGB would let everyone see the same colours. Time3000 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were right, I misinterpreted your saying. Anyhow, now I've uploaded an sRGB version. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sRGB version uploaded. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much of the bottom part of the building is lost due to the viewing angle. The door of the castle is obscured by a bush. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost nothing lost of the lower part of the building, even though I chose this angle to take the picture from. If you look to the column left of the door of the castle you can see the ledge, which touches the ground... As for the bush, well, I can't cut it down. The right side of the building was being coffered in scaffolding, so another point was not an option. And a large part of the door is still visible. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support It's a good, high quality image. Difficult to show the octagonal shape and quite likely impossible to get the whole thing in the frame from the top of the hill. I share those slight misgivings about the perspective correction, it's never going to make something shot from a low angle look natural and I see this as a decent compromise, well taken. --mikaul^talk 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]