Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Regensburg twilight panorama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regensburg twilight panorama

Regensburg twilight panorama
Regensburg twilight panorama
Edit 1 by Howcheng, about 1200px cropped off both right and left
Edit 1 by Howcheng, about 1200px cropped off both right and left
Encyplopaedic edit by Samsara (can someone fix the file size please?)
Encyplopaedic edit by Samsara (can someone fix the file size please?)

This panoramic photograph shows a part of the German city of Regensburg, with the 12th century Steinerne Brücke and Regensburg Cathedral on the left and the river Danube in the foreground. The photographer is de-Wikipedian Grizurgbg (Karsten Dörre).

  • Nominate and support (I prefer the original, although Samsara's edit is ok, too). - KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great picture! Nice composition and exposure, the photographer picked a great light/time. The stitching seems to be flawless. Low noise and good sharpness. I just can't find anything wrong with it. --Dschwen 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any. Per Dschwen, though the distortion is a *bit* distracting. --Tewy 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think edit 2 is the best crop, though. It's a nice compromise between too much and too little. --Tewy 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support Except for the distortion (tilting biuldings) this is great. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either. Good quality (aside from the distortion) and good encyclopedic value. NauticaShades 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent. Per Dschwen --Fir0002 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before anymore people repeat this distortion argument just let me add this. There is always distortion in any photograph. Any photo is a mapping of the inside of a sphere (onto which the 3d surroundings are point projected) onto a flat 2D surface. This is equivalent to the geographical mapping problem (spheroid globe -> flat map). You have to choose between straight lines, correct distances, correct angles, and correct area ratios, or you have to find compromises. This is what the projections do. The distortions become more apparent the larger the field of view is. This pano and the one above have large FOVs, and the image creators had to make a choice of projection. I can only talk for myself, but as much as I value straight lines the price you pay is too high. The incorrect angles, distances and areas distort the spatial perception, the proportions of the buildings too much. Anyways as you see, distortion is kind of a null-argument, you'd have to be more specific, or trust the image creator that he made the choice for a good reason, compaing the outcome with the memory he had from the time and place he took the pic. Oh, the reason we do not percieve distortion in real life with our eyes ist that our brain creates a 3D image internally, thus no mapping no projection no distortion. --Dschwen 08:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Admittedly I prefer daylight images for the most encyclopaedic value, but this is light enough to provide information on the place and also visually appealing. --jjron 08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Preference for original. --jjron 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support there is something about the composition that bugs me. Seems like a lot of dead space in the water and to the left and right. And the composition and balance of the left most and right most space is also bothersome. I'm not sure, but I may like a tighter crop of just the middle buildings better. Otherwise, great shot and high quality image.--Andrew c 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How about the cropped version? Support my edit. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Very nice. Support Edit 1. Addressed my concerns with the original above.--Andrew c 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Towsonu2003 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. I was hoping someone would crop the edges as I don't think they enhance the image at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better now. - Alvesgaspar 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because blown out street lights would not be a good reason to oppose in this case. gren グレン 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose edit 1. City is not on a lake. Depicting it this way is not encyclopaedic. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is depicted as being on a lake. You can still see a bridge across the river, and you can see the cylindrical distortion which makes it pretty obvious that it isn't a lake, although such distortion can sometimes be misleading. Your edit isn't bad either but by no means necessary in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like this photograph a lot; very good quality. JonCatalan 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support versions 2 and 3. Alvesgaspar 11:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Regensburg Uferpanorama 08 2006 2.jpg NauticaShades 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)