Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Frauenkirche, Munich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Frauenkirche, Munich[edit]

Original - The Frauenkirche in Munich, Germany is the biggest church in this Bavarian city. It is a prominent landmark and its towers can be seen from far away.
Edit 1 - sensor dust spot removed, slight rotation
Reason
This photograph is a highly detailed and classical view of this monument and it has substantial EV.
Articles this image appears in
Munich Frauenkirche and Munich
Creator
Diliff
  • Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the composition is not up to FP standard: the bottom of the church is obscured by the buildings in the foreground and the horizon just above the line of the roof is distracting. Time3000 (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This is the most complete, and the only practical view possible of the church, short of hiring a balloon or a helicopter. I respect your opinion and points raised though - not every subject is a practical candidate for FP due to the limitations of the environment and difficulty of capture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Torre Agbar - Similar existing FP
  • Exactly my words, though I believe this is one of those pictures, which is a practical candidate for FP. Further more, I would like to add, that we have featured similar pictures in the past, so I don't see any reason why we should stop now. See example on right. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while it is certainly true that taking a FP-quality photo of this subject may be difficult, that does not change our standards or the fact that this photo is not especially compelling. FP should be used for photos that provoke a "wow" reaction, that represent our best work compared to all photos on WP, not just compared to other photos of that particular subject. (I suspect a better photo of this subject could be taken at a different time of day, in any case; the near-overhead lighting in this image detracts from the photo by flattening the contrasts.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Can I suggest that you are actually inventing the 'wow' criteria, though? While I admit that this seems to be something that many people apply to FPC nominations, it is not in the agreed criteria and it is not for individuals to decide what criteria to apply to nominations. That said, I'm sure that the point I'm making will have no impact on voting, as people will either apply or choose to ignore the set criteria at their own discretion. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the reasons given above. Sasata (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Diliff's comments above. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support If this is the best possible angle to shoot from, I wonder why the complaints. Lighting IMO is pretty good. --Muhammad(talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support A more "traditional" shot from the front of the building would obscure the way the neighbouring roofs are so similar in design to the roof of the church. Although, I am curious why the time on the clock doesn't match the time in the file data. I smell the work of the cabal! Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • OK OK, I admit it. You caught me! I photoshopped the image to change the time on the clockface, and to make it look like daylight. It really was exactly midnight when I took it, as evidenced by the timestamp! ;-) And for the record, the 'traditional' view from ground level would look much like this image from the article. I know which view I find prefereable... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Weak because its on the borderline of being a subject that is just impossible to get a FP quality image of. Support because it is a technically excellent image and, for all intents and purposes, as good as we are going to get of this subject. Cacophony (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. My two cents on the issue: No image is capable of capturing every aspect, angle and detail of a subject. This is especially true of the subject in question where it is surrounded on all sides by other buildings, so a good ground level view is not possible. That said, I don't feel that you are really missing much in this view. Sure, you don't get the detail at ground level, but you get a much better idea of the architecture and the way it sits within it's surroundings. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Automatic haze removal filters are at most two clicks away in any respectable photo editing application. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hide lengthy white balance discussion
    • And your point being? Are you suggesting that we fake the sky to make it prettier? I am the first to admit that sometimes a bit of contrast/saturation adjustments makes a big difference to the aesthetics but I don't see why it is necessary to falsify the reality. It isn't even particularly hazy IMO. You show me a modern city that has blue sky from horizon to horizon. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe you're in need of a new monitor, but I don't see any haze at all. The subject is well lit and extremely sharp. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • On any image that either of you plan to nominate, *please* first run an automatic white balance filter. If the result is drastically different from your image, maybe that's trying to tell you something. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Your photographic credentials are practically non-existent based on what you've contributed to Wikipedia, so I find it difficult to take your advice seriously. Experienced photographers are generally far better at selecting their own white balance than relying on a camera's or image editing software's white balance. Besides, white balance is not an exact science so there is no absolute right or wrong choice - merely what looks realistic to the photographer's eye (and also the viewer's eye). I haven't seen any other complaints on that issue apart from you. Anyway, how did the discussion move from haze to white balance? They are two distinctly different issues. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • You didn't just go there, did you? I'll just assume you didn't really just say that people who don't upload photos to WP can't !vote at FPC. For your claim that haze doesn't cause colour shifts, I refer you to the article, haze. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I didn't say that at all. You seem to specialise in loosely paraphrasing people to stir up an arguments and put words in people's mouths. What I did essentially say was that I don't trust your photographic experience enough to take advice regarding basic image-processing, when I feel I have a decent enough grasp of it. Simple good faith is assumed of course, and that applies to anyone regardless of whether they contribute images or not but beyond that, respect is earned, IMO. There are a number of contributors whose photographic experience is fairly well documented and I therefore take their advice and opinions more seriously than others. It is my FPC equivalent to articles requiring citations for the verification of written content. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • And as for the haze and colour shifts, again I never claimed haze didn't cause colour shifts. I did say that white balance is a completely different issue to haze though, and I stand by it. Hypothetically, if haze caused a blue sky to turn bright red, then that would be the correct colour to represent the sky. You wouldn't change the white balance to shift the entire scene in the direction of blue to correct for the haze, would you? Likewise, if the haze causes a blue sky to change colour slightly, then so be it. This is not a white balance issue at all! ARGH! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • This is nonsense. First of all, we're not talking about a picture of the sky, we're talking about a building, and the most encyclopaedic depiction has proven to be a trichromatic image taken with equal weight given to the spectral frequencies hitting the three different sensors, i.e. whitish daylight, which is what human vision is attuned to. You're telling us that this image is encyclopaedic because it depicts the church, not because it depicts the haze (you didn't nominate it for that article, did you, now?) So with a bad white balance, you're either failing because EV suffers, or because you manipulated the image to bring about a strange balance of colors. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm actually not following the bulk of your argument here. I don't deny that there is some haze near the horizon, as that is quite normal, but clearly it is not the ideal photo to illustrate haze because it is minor and secondary to the main subject, as you allude to. And It doesn't matter whether the subject is the sky or a building - if there is a colour change as a result of haze, it still shouldn't affect the white balance of the scene unless (and this is a big unless) the sunlight is being filtered through the bulk of the haze (such as at sunrise/sunset, and even then a lot of the time it is aesthetic to keep the warm cast that results, because that is what our eyes see) and a colour cast is created. As you can see, the sky is fairly clear and as such, with the sun being high in the sky, the colour cast is neutral and no correction for the haze on the horizon is necessary IMO. And for the record, I didn't actually nominate the image at all by the way. It was Massimo. Is enough enough yet, or do we need to continue this? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • Funny you should ask that, given that you just served up two new replies, and are vigorously attacking anyone that says something about this image, even though you did not nominate it. There's no need to argue about physics here. We both know that the light goes through the haze on the way to the church and then again after the bounce. I've stated my opinion about using light that is as white as possible in our images, or doing the necessary corrections. If you don't agree, that's your problem. I've stated my reasoning very clearly, and no edit has been brought forward that addresses the issue. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • I am not vigorously attacking anyone - mainly just yourself. ;-) And I'm really just attacking the arguments by the way, not the people, although sometimes I feel it necessary to get somewhat personal to describe the things that I see you are doing. Yes, I know you have stated your opinion regarding white light, but I don't think you have actually produced an accurate method of 'using white light' to 'correct' the image. The ideal method is of course using a grey card to get a measurement of the light, but in the absence of that, using an object within the scene that is believed to be grey-white is usually the next best thing (although even this is often not helpful if you cannot be sure of said object's neutrality, as it could be off-white and there is no way to be sure after the event). Using an 'auto correct' tool is fair way down the list IMO. And if nobody else except you has had a problem with the white balance of the image or has produced an edit to 'correct the fault', then perhaps a bit of introspective soul searching is needed to discover why this is? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Diliff. Although tempted to weak support per Papa Lima Whiskey's comment, there's something to be said for keeping the natural element here. Ideally this would get shot shortly after a rainshower when the sky is at its clearest (that's practically the only way to get certain cities in California), but until a better original becomes available this is worth promoting. Pollution element is minor and EV significant. DurovaCharge! 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hide another lengthy discussion
    • Even if both this image and this one had been taken at sunset (which he says the Oxford one wasn't), then you'd have to ask whether that is encyclopaedic lighting. Given the evidence presented so far, I have a feeling Diliff may want to review his choice of RAW software. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Review my choice of RAW software?? I use one of the most highly respected packages in the professional industry (Adobe Lightroom 2). If there genuinely is an issue with white balance (and as I said above, there is no absolute right and wrong), 99% of the problem would be my choice of white balance rather than the software used, as I almost always manually correct it - particularly with panoramic/mosaic images where each frame in the set often has a different camera-selected white balance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I was offering you a chance to get out of this without saying your white balance is bad. You didn't take it, so I feel free to now inform you that your white balance is bad. Congratulations. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I freely admit that there is a chance of this - we're all fallible. But could it be that your idea of white balance is bad instead? You seem to see the world as if you're the centre of it, and we all revolve around. In any case, rather than throw accusations, perhaps you could point out exactly what you think is definitively wrong with the white balance of this image? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • No, I use algorithms provided with photo editing software to test for bad white balance. I don't write these algorithms, they're the result of decades of research into properties of the visible spectrum as well as what looks like an authentic photo to a human subject. And in this case, the difference between the original and the corrected image is sufficiently great to confirm my suspicion that this image has a warm-toned cast. And the fact that I complain about *your* images far more than anybody else's might lead an introspective person to reconsider the white balance of these images, and whether this may be something to do with the settings or software they use, in general. I'm not making any judgements about Lightroom in particular, I've read the tests, and there isn't a RAW development software whose default settings work perfectly in all situations. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't think any of the people who write the algorithms would have any notion that they are the most accurate methods of ensuring correct white balance. It is a well-known fact that relying on auto correct white balance functions in editing programs/cameras is problematic at best and very foolish at worst. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • No, but if the image looks wrong on four different displays, and the auto white balanced version is a drastically different image, you would think you're onto something, and I definitely believe that's the case for this image. See my comments about white light, above. In the end, we don't rely on the opinions of blogs either, which are not reliable sources. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • The image might look wrong to you on four different displays, but you still haven't discounted the possibility of you being the common factor. ;-) And you're right, my source would probably not be acceptable as a citation in an article, but that was not my intention - it was merely to get you to read and understand the logic behind why you can't rely on the white balance algorithms for accuracy, and that blog does a pretty good job. If you refuse to acknowledge it, so be it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I still maintain that the polution/haze in this image is quite minor, though. All skies become less blue approaching the horizon due to natural haze (not necessarily pollution). Sounds like a mountain-molehill situation, to me... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Whew, hadn't realized this much had broken out since my review. For the record, Support either. Auto settings are worth a looksee and sometimes do better than manual adjustment, but actual conditions vary so much that it's really best to try both ways. Also, different choices can feel correct to different people depending on which artistic vision they prefer. Let's keep it friendly, fellas. DurovaCharge! 07:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Can't do much about the obscured bottom of the church, unless someone here has a wrecking ball, but dust off the old clone tool and clean your sensor Diliff (upper right corner) ;) —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, I do religiously clone out dust from my images (fighting a losing battle really), but sometimes miss the odd speck. :-) There would have been more of them otherwise. Could someone else do the needful here? I'm temporarily without internet access (moved house recently) so have to do my Wiki'ing from work at the moment. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 I removed the dust and took the liberty of rotating the image slightly to vertical, which was driving me nuts ;). Incidentally, there's absolutely nothing wrong with white balance here, according to my eyes/monitor/Lightroom2 etc. mikaultalk 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Wladyslaw (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's good enough technically, it's just one of those subjects that doesn't really have an FP angle. It feels like the subject has been crept up on from behind. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Good technicals, good enc. With the layout, I understant this is the best location from the ground to take the picture, and I take that into account. Good job, SpencerT♦C 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Frauenkirche Munich - View from Peterskirche Tower2.jpg MER-C 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)