Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England - May 2009.jpg

File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England - May 2009.jpg

 * Reason:High resolution, clear view (as clear as possible, given the trees) of the church and grounds.
 * Articles this image appears in:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston and Alfriston.
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original or Edit 2. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Very nice as usual, but there appears to be some sort of perspective distortion (vertical). Take a look at the chimney of the church for example. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I can't see any significant distortion in the chimney... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Edit 1 --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you're saying now. Well, it's possible that additional slight perspective correction was needed, but it's so minimal. It's quite difficult to know for sure unless you measure known vertical lines (there aren't many, particularly when it's an old church like this). I'd be happy to support the edit if that's what people prefer, though. If anyone bites at all, that is ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hard to tell for sure as you say, but I was thinking something similar. Just looking at the original thumb, it looked to me that the church has some perspective distortion, but the trees don't, which looked a bit odd - I didn't know if might be a stitching issue. The file is a bit big for me to download though atm, so didn't want to spoil the nom by being the first to question it on a thumbnail impression (though I've just done a 2000px preview, and the trees, especially at the right look like they might be leaning towards the centre too). Just tell me if I'm mistaken. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, was just thinking that the composition may be a tad stronger if it was cropped at right about halfway in the space between the big trees, taking out that half-tree. --jjron (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think you could be right about a crop taking out the far-right tree. I had considered it, but wanted to include as much of the graveyard as possible, but I agree it does unbalance the composition a little. I think that there may be a very slight inward lean of the building (a matter of a few pixels, perhaps, but in a scene like this you have to guess the horizon which in turn 'corrects' the verticals), but it's hard to say if the trees are leaning one way or the other as they don't tend to grow to geometric ideals. I agree the right-hand trees look to be leaning slightly to the left, but I think this may actually be because they've been trimmed on the left or otherwise inhibited in some way by the other tree without leaves. Too many ambiguous factors to be sure about any angles in this photo. I think any perceived lean is likely to be 80% optical illusion and 20% truth. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But if all trees have the same lean it would tend to indicate something... It is fairly ambiguous though in this scene. I understand the concept of trying to keep in as much as possible, but what's a few headstones between friends? :-) Take off the right, and I'd probably support. Just to be clear, I'd personally crop midway between the curved headstone and the cross where there's a bit of a gap, taking out the three far right crosses and the tree. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't think all of the trees DO have the same lean though - some lean in, some lean out, some appear to have a leafy bias toward one side but are otherwise straight, and even if they did have the same lean, it could also be explained by uneven ground, prevailing winds, etc ;-). Oh, and I hadn't paid close attention to Massimo's edit until I went to upload a cropped version of his image, but he's actually overcorrected it as far as I can see, and now the building seems to be leaning outwards at the sides (the only line that seems straight is the chimney, and I wouldn't be convinced that it's the best vertical line to correct for). Most of the other formerly almost-straight verticals ended up being less straight than before. I had uploaded edit 2 based on edit 1's perspective first, but I've re-uploaded over the top of it with a crop of the original image. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Whichever edit, isn't a big deal for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 per above. Fair enough. I can't be sure on the perspectives either really - comparing Edit 1 with the others was starting to make me dizzy without achieving much, and I agree I don't think I'd rely on an old chimney as a determinant of verticals. Probably too hard to call. --jjron (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 also per above. You're right about the fact that the difference in perspective is minimal. I just wanted to bring it to your attention, might you have missed it :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original - I prefer the wider crop. -Halo (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either: though I do prefer the original, on account of the break in the clouds. In Edit 2, it is too far to the right and seems to be more of an imbalance than the trees.  Either way, though, beautiful image and technically faultless.   Mae din \talk 12:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer edit 2 --Muhammad (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support? Or just prefer? ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't viewed at a larger res, file size is too big --Muhammad (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)