Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:V&A Museum Foyer, London - Oct 2012.jpg
File:V&A Museum Foyer, London - Oct 2012.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 14:52:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's a wide, vertically perspective corrected view of the entrance foyer of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the "world's largest museum of decorative arts and design".
- Articles in which this image appears
- Victoria and Albert Museum
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, great usage of both contrast and lighting to highlight the unique coloration schema. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Suppport Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- comment Hmm I'd have to say there are a number of issues that suggest it would be better to wait until camera technology improves.©Geni 12:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? If you're referring to the dynamic range, which I found was the biggest challenge with this photo, then I accept that criticism, but I don't think the only solution is waiting for improvements in camera technology. An exposure blend may help, for example. However, it wouldn't be easy in this photo as it's four segments (2x2) stitched, and taken handheld while leaning a long way over the balcony to avoid the edges from appearing in the frame. I'm not sure that I could hold the camera particularly steady for longer exposures necessary for bracketing, but I could try. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Colour change on the floor betweeen far left and right. Not sure of that is real. The leftmost arch either has a screen across it that the camera is struggling to render or something strange is going on. The view through the rightmost arch has overexposure issues.©Geni 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why you would assume that the colour change between left and right is a camera issue though. The camera wouldn't create such blatant colour shifts across a scene. There are quite different light sources: left side is natural lighting coming in from the entrance, right side is fluorescent, middle is incadescent. The leftmost arch has an array of cables hanging from the roof which is what you're seeing there. Yes, it's a bit noisy and isn't rendered cleanly, but fine lines in dark areas rarely are at the best of times, even at low ISO. As for the view through the rightmost arch, I wouldn't really call it overexposed - it's just reflected light in the gold trim, which is pretty hard to avoid. I don't think there are any truly blown highlights there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Colour change on the floor betweeen far left and right. Not sure of that is real. The leftmost arch either has a screen across it that the camera is struggling to render or something strange is going on. The view through the rightmost arch has overexposure issues.©Geni 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? If you're referring to the dynamic range, which I found was the biggest challenge with this photo, then I accept that criticism, but I don't think the only solution is waiting for improvements in camera technology. An exposure blend may help, for example. However, it wouldn't be easy in this photo as it's four segments (2x2) stitched, and taken handheld while leaning a long way over the balcony to avoid the edges from appearing in the frame. I'm not sure that I could hold the camera particularly steady for longer exposures necessary for bracketing, but I could try. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Whatever the technical merits, this is a very formal architectural space and the casual angle it's seen from here fails to convey that. At the very least it should be possible to see some element of symmetry. ProfDEH (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not possible to take a photo from a symmetrical angle. The best position would be from a central position in front of the pillars (obviously not realistic). The only other symmetrical position is the middle of the balconies. However, I tried that too and the resulting distortion is very unpleasant - more (IMO) than the lack of symmetry here. In such a small space, to fully capture the entire room while minimising distortion, this view is it unfortunately. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I know that is the case, but it isn't a reason to support FP. The space is square and I do think the image lacks value if that is not immediately apparent, even to an architect. Actually I rather like the distorted wide angle rejected view, it explains the space very much better. Isn't there a way to reduce the distortion, maybe by not fully correcting the verticals?ProfDEH (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's possible to reduce the distortion. Not fully correcting the verticals results in this, which is even worse. Because the angle of view on the vertical is so high, correcting the distortion of the floor dramatically increases the distortion of the roof, not to mention the vertical lines are no longer straight. It's just one of those scenes that you cannot photograph without distortion. All you can do is minimise it by selecting the best available position, which I think I did. You're right though, it's not an argument in favour of featuring it if you don't think the perspective works. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- (I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to discuss this but) the corrected symmetrical version really shows what is going on so well, you can crop it to a portrait format and still get the sense of a square space and the interconnected aisles or whatever they are called. ProfDEH (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's possible to reduce the distortion. Not fully correcting the verticals results in this, which is even worse. Because the angle of view on the vertical is so high, correcting the distortion of the floor dramatically increases the distortion of the roof, not to mention the vertical lines are no longer straight. It's just one of those scenes that you cannot photograph without distortion. All you can do is minimise it by selecting the best available position, which I think I did. You're right though, it's not an argument in favour of featuring it if you don't think the perspective works. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I know that is the case, but it isn't a reason to support FP. The space is square and I do think the image lacks value if that is not immediately apparent, even to an architect. Actually I rather like the distorted wide angle rejected view, it explains the space very much better. Isn't there a way to reduce the distortion, maybe by not fully correcting the verticals?ProfDEH (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I tried "squashing" the alternative to around 2/3 its size and the distortions seemed to disappear. Would it be possible to do so more effectively? --Muhammad(talk) 21:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure exactly what you mean by squashing it to 2/3 it's size? Do you mean in both dimensions (not sure how that would help), or do you mean just vertical or just horizontal? I tried both to see what you meant, and neither seemed to remove distortions IMO. In any case, because of the nature of the projection used, I don't think linear compression is the answer, any 'fix', if there were to be one, would be a complex non-linear compression. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Fish eye effect is pretty strong along the bottom/left side of the picture. Dusty777 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose This is a good image which would have required a lot of experience and work to execute. However, I think that the distortions to the foyer are too great for it to be of FP standard; a feature of the V&A's foyer is that it's fairly cramped, and this gives an illusion of space. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
