Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Support OpposeI was going for featuring because I like very much composition and atmospherebut it seems there is a problem with perspective correction : buildings on the left lean to the left, on the right to the right and I do not support. --B.navez (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I thought it needed perspective correction also, so I went back, but the buildings on the left really lean to the left. All buildings in Amsterdam lean in some way or another in a direction by the way. A good example is the second house from the corner and the right of the building on the corner. You can clearly see it leaning forward. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
- That's well known Amsterdam buildings do lean and that's why it is difficult to check the perspective lines but if you look at the light pole on the left you can see it is not vertical at all. Thus leaning of the buildings on the left is exaggerated too.--B.navez (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's because most light poles in Amsterdam also lean in some direction. I have tons of pictures showing leaning light poles, which are even in the center of a picture. If there was a problem with the perspective in this picture, the light poles in the right corner would also be leaning to the right, which they are not. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
- Sorry I was wrong. I have not been there for 30 years. --B.navez (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Twice sorry for changing my mind once more but there is really a noticeable problem of distortion. As we cannot rely on buildings which do lean, I looked at the water. As water gives the horizontal reference, axis of reflection must be vertical. The top of the tree is not vertically above its reflexion and the axis of symetry of the light perspective of the canal is not vertical too. --B.navez (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Lay a grid over the picture and you will see that the reflection are almost vertical in line with there source..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Twice sorry for changing my mind once more but there is really a noticeable problem of distortion. As we cannot rely on buildings which do lean, I looked at the water. As water gives the horizontal reference, axis of reflection must be vertical. The top of the tree is not vertically above its reflexion and the axis of symetry of the light perspective of the canal is not vertical too. --B.navez (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was wrong. I have not been there for 30 years. --B.navez (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's because most light poles in Amsterdam also lean in some direction. I have tons of pictures showing leaning light poles, which are even in the center of a picture. If there was a problem with the perspective in this picture, the light poles in the right corner would also be leaning to the right, which they are not. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
- Support Massimo is right, although not all buildings in Amsterdam lean over forward, just the old ones, up to and including 18th century or so. The perspective is correct. MartinD (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I meant all old buildings along side the canals ;). Thanks for the correction.
- Support -- Avala (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good lights --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective issues. Lycaon (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to correct the perspective here. Even a 100 point horizontal perspective correction did not bring the reflections in the water in order with there source, although there are practically in order. If you are so convinced there is a problem, try fixing it and show me. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just laid a grid over the picture and the reflections in the water are practically symmetrical in a vertical axis with the sources. In the longer reflections there are only some defects, probably created by wind. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have fixed this proposal :
--B.navez (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for your try on this. I think the new version looks worse than the original. If you look at the buildings in the new version they look compressed, like someone put his hand on them and pushed them down (the buildings became shorter). Also the picture look really bloated. So I'll stick to my original opinion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have fixed this proposal :
- I just laid a grid over the picture and the reflections in the water are practically symmetrical in a vertical axis with the sources. In the longer reflections there are only some defects, probably created by wind. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
