Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Perth Town Hall - Perth.jpg

Perth Town Hall
Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2012 at 05:31:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality, geocoded image of the only only convict-built town hall in Australia
 * Articles in which this image appears:Perth Town Hall
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:JJ Harrison


 * Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I know you likely couldn't get further back, but it's just a crazy amount of vertical distortion. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  05:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Diliff. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. They're right. :-( Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Vertical distortion is very fixable using many programs, no? Although I don't know if that would qualify as "inappropriate digital manipulation". - Running On Brains (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so; WP:WIAFP explicitly permits digital manipulation that is "not deceptive", and describes "perspective correction" as a "typical acceptable manipulation". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I belive this image was already "corrected", and this is a typical result when an orginal has considerable distortion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Safron Blaze is right - kind of. In any three-dimensional scene, if you correct one kind of distortion, you introduce (or increase) another, so geometric compromises are inevitable, and they are exacerbated by a wide angle of view. If you take a photo looking up at a building at an acute angle such as this, you will only ever see a thin slice of what's up there at the top. You can bend or stretch it or whatever you like, but you can never 'fix' it so it looks like it was taken from a more acceptable distance. It's a fundamental limitation of perspective. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the perspective seems wrong here, maybe that's unavoidable. Either way it's a huge improvement on the article's preceding photo. TehGrauniad (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)