Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chambord Castle Northwest facade.jpg

Chambord Castle Northwest facade
Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 15:52:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:Noticed the picture I replaced was already FP. As this one is a far better version, with better lighting and much higher resolution, I propose to promote it here (maybe replacing old one, not sure about the process here). Not most inspiring shot, but fulfills its encyclopedic purposes well IMO.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Château_de_Chambord
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Commons:User:Benh


 * Support as nominator --Blieusong (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm loving the perspective lines. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive. -- Colin°Talk 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but I have the impression that the colour balance is a bit warm. I'm really not sure what it looks like in person though, because the other photos in the article show it to be virtually bleached white, or even more yellowy-cream. I kind of wish there was a bit more sky, as I find it, compositionally, a bit bottom-heavy. In any case though, detail is very good and it's an excellent replacement for the other, which I didn't really like that much even in 2006, reading back on the nomination.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be right. But I checked the setting, and I don't think the WB was set to something excessively cool (5900°) and I offset the tint trigger to the red side to remove the green color cast. But as far I as remember I was a bit surprised with how white the building rendered in real because many pictures have too warm (?) WB, and that's how we see it in the end. Maybe someday someone else will confirm. In any way, it will be an easy fix. As for the composition issue... I'll be fine with a cropped alternative, but will leave up to the more acquainted reviewers of en:FPC to decide which one suits best EV purposes. - Blieusong (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read it again and noticed you actually mention warm... time for me to go to sleep. Tough issue to settle. I'll leave it like that because I remember this less well than when I processed it. Until someone confirms. - Blieusong (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Chambord pano.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Creator of the "superseded" FP here. Yeah, this one is clearly better - the light was really flat on mine. Also it was taken with a compact :) To my eye, the colour balance in this FPC is on the warm side, but you know, 4:37pm in May, maybe. Stevage 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support  JKadavoor    Jee  08:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I brought WB to the cooler side a bit and also slightly sharpened it. I overwrote the original one since it's likely to be a good change for everyone. - Blieusong (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't easily tell from my work PC (the display is awful), but it looks to be a significant improvement of the white balance. I don't think it needed any more than that. Thanks. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support gaz hiley  15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be an increasing number of these artificial/distorted perspective pictures, especially of buildings. While often excellent encyclopedic value in terms of documenting the buildings themselves, I find them aesthetically displeasing. 86.181.201.173 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Same seems to go for anonymous irrelevant comments (Irrelevant here for sure). This picture roughly has 68° of horizontal field of view and uses rectilinear projection (check EXIF, "comment" field). Pretty much what you would get with a standard lens at common focal length. To prove you wrong, this is a same picture taken at 24mm on APSC, in a single shot and with zero postprocessing, excepted for the levels/tones parts. You can see one needn't distort anything to get the results as seen on the FP candidate (and for a good reason, it's from the same point of view). - Blieusong (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See . And I'll thank you not to make snarky comments. I am entitled to an opinion. 86.171.42.231 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His point was valid though. The image is not 'artificially disorted' and the field of view is not extreme. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even those who choose to be anonymous, but obviously incorrect ones are entitled to be disputed. In any case, your original comment came across as a bit inflamatory and I don't blame him for responding as he did. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that my comment was a bit extreme, I apologize for that. But as said, my point is valid (which you didn't denied) and I did not want the claim to mislead other people (which happens). - Blieusong (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to muddy the waters a little: there is a degree of twisting distortion on the round towers at the extreme left and right: the horizontals aren't and the verticals are slightly out too. This occurred to a greater extent on the Taj image which did have an extreme horizontal angle of view. I agree that the angle of view here isn't more than the wide-angle setting on a standard zoom, and it appears on the out-of-camera shot Blieusong links. What is going on? Is this the horizontal equivalent of a vertical perspective distortion? The sides and middle of the building aren't precisely the same distance from the viewer yet the rectilinear projection (or standard lens) gives that illusion on our 2D screens. Could it be that this sort of distortion is always present on large architectural subjects, but these little round towers are unforgiving subjects? -- Colin°Talk 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there is a small amount of counterclockwise rotation (resulting in horizontal tilt), and a small inwards perspective tilt (undercorrected verticals), but these are just imperfections in the perspective correction rather than distortion caused by an extreme angle of view, and they're not really visible at a regular viewing distance. I can see that the towers appear to be skewed inwards but I wonder if the reason for this is that they're not parallel with the front facade and as a result, the outside visible edge is closer to the viewer than the inside edge (also due to the fact that we're essentially viewing it from an angle and not straight-on). I'm straining my brain to visualise just what this should do to the perspective, and whether it would explain what we're seeing. In any case, I'm not particularly bothered by the 'imperfection' - it's good enough. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think u r right, seems to be more backward tilt (point of view slightly up). I attribute this to me not using vertical correction as you mentioned. Will fix. Thanks for review. As for distortion, I'd like to insist that projecting 3D space into 2D plan comes with properties tradeoffs such as angle, straightness of lines, areas (they are the said distortions) and I could go on but don't know them all. So there are always distortion of some kind, and it depends on how you define them, or how much of them you're willing to accept. We have to be aware of the constraints: you can't expect a square to always remain a square unless it's in a plan parallel to the focal plan, and the projection is linear. The only possible counteract to this is getting farther away from the subject, and we would have ended with something more like the previous FP. The rest is matter of taste. - Blieusong (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment After looking at other pictures and coming back to that one, I decided to increase contrast and saturation a little. Hope you won't mind. - Blieusong (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well... after Colin and Diliff's reviews I had to fix the backward leaning... Which is done now I believe (for those interested, I messed up with the guidelines. My verticals were good, but my horizontal guide was wrong). I again overwrote, and as a bonus (or not depending on how u look at it) provided a wider framing. Hope this will be a final change. Thanks for the helpful reviews also. - Blieusong (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support High EV, good quality, etc. All the changes noted above are improvements IMO. Jujutacular (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)