I really like the dark foreground, the sense of depth created by the fog, and the light skimming the tops of the trees. Also the moods created by the colors of light. Try cropping out most of the sky. Also try sharpening the closest trees. If they help, that's good; if they don't then skip them. Fg207:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this on Commons:Quality images candidates (a first for me). It got "shot down" there. The only thing is the reason it was shot down was because the narrow depth of field used. I deliberately wanted the image to look like that. I was just wondering does anyone else think the depth of field is wrong or takes away from the image?--Trounce14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unfocused bottom definitely takes away from the image. It was the first thing I saw, instead of the caption Isaiah like you intended. If you deliberately want the image to look like that I would suggest a slightly wider depth of field so it isn't so blurry at the bottom. --Digon315:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the main subject is the book, then I think it should be perfectly focused, which isn't really difficult if we use a proper lens and exposure settings. I also don't like the crop, why was it made this way? I suspect that aesthetical reasons might have been preponderant here but the result doesn't seem very pleasant to the eye. For a simple and common subject like this, and with controlled conditions, we have to be perfect! - Alvesgaspar19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this image and thought it was very striking. I was considering nominating it to be featured, but I haven't nominated a picture before and am not very familiar with the standards for featured pictures. Any comments on whether or not this would make a decent candidate or what could be done (if anything) to get it there? ShadowHalo12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good chance of this image to get featured. I would suggest to nominate it for quality images as a start. Perhaps some minor noise reduction could be done to improve this image. norro19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't nominate it at COM:QIC because I didn't take the picture, so I may as well nominate the noise-removed version for featured and see what happens. Thanks for your input. ShadowHalo18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took me some time to wait for the sun to briefly come out and light the flag decorated town hall in Antwerp before I could take the two original photos I have stitched together for this image. In the stitch I aligned the vertical lines, this gives the building a towering impression, but I wonder whether a partial perspective correction would look better. I think that some cropping (original left, cropped right) would be beneficial, but I am unsure about where to crop best.--Klaus with K19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried the suggested crop. In principle I would have liked to keep the highest point of the gable within the cropped view, but then edges of other objects (other building, flag, umbrella) would have come into view. Would you extent the crop further right?
No, i wouldnt. In my opinion the people and umbrellas to the right give the observer a feeling for size and the street on the right and the buildings give the observer a feeling of depth. So I´m fine with the new version. Simonizer08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest cropping to eliminate the building on the right entirely. There's a light pole with some cloth wrapped around it (or maybe two umbrellas, one on each side 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). If you crop just to the left of the cloth, eliminating all the cloth, the light pole, and the building, it looks better to me. Cropping this way leaves a man with his back to the edge of the frame. That seems appropriate. However, it's only visible close up. The major point in cropping this photo is to keep the viewer's interest inside the frame. Removing the building on the right helps that.
Next, you expressed concern about left-right balance. If you want to crop the left, also, you can eliminate one or even both of the light buildings at the left. In my opinion, removing both of the light buildings strengthens the photo. Fg204:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt do that. That makes the subject centered. And centered subjects are boring. Also the cloud above that buildings is a good diagonal from the upper left corner to the subject. This diagonal emphasizes the subject. Thats my opinion.Simonizer07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you can try another thing. Keep the left completly an cut the right like Fg2 said. That is also a good crop, I think, allthough you loose the things I mentioned above. Simonizer07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the diagonal. I already tried cropping left, see above, but as you say, then the diagonal cloud alignment no longer starts close to the corner. Now on the right I have removed the umbrellas behind the lamppost. Regarding symmetry, the eagle at the top is almost exactly in the middle, but the building corpus is off-center to the right and faces the square visible on the left. (P.S. should the cloud edge start exactly in the top left corner?) --Klaus with K13:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your photo is in many ways more appealing than the dreary one currently being used in en:Antwerp City Hall. But since we are on the ground looking at an upward angle, we would expect the vertical lines of the building to appear to converge slightly toward the top. Making the vertical lines parallel makes the top of the building appear too big for its base. Perhaps you can make two versions of this photo, one with and one without perspective correction. --Opie19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a quick fix modifying the first photo. It is 99% ok, for a 100% correct perspective I would need to dig out the working files I have saved at home on CDROM. Now the vertical lines converge slightly towards the top. Do you feel more slant is needed? For me the towering feeling is gone, and the price of slanted vertical lines just still acceptable.--Klaus with K16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here is a cropped version (left)--Digon3 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
