Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Press Monument

National Press Monument
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2013  at 09:34:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution and quality, gives a view of the whole building (including the parking area and public reading boards, thus providing extra EV). Article is quite solidly referenced, which is a bonus
 * Articles in which this image appears:National Press Monument
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Chris Woodrich


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sharpness is much improved in this one, did you use a better aperture? I'm pretty close to supporting this one, but just a suggestion. It might be possible to use a rectilinear projection to avoid curvature of the building without introducing too much distortion... I've never used Microsoft ICE so I'm not sure what it's capable of. It seems to do a decent job of stitching and blending but does it give you the option to stitch with rectilinear projection? I'd have to see how the distortion looks to judge if it works. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, is this another one where the facade of the building is actually straight in real life? Forget featured picture, these distorted pictures need to be deleted from the whole of Wikipedia. They are so misleading. 86.128.5.150 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Diliff: I will check it out when I get home. I don't recall seeing it. I tried using Hugin, but it was getting some serious errors (because I'm on Windows?). Aperture was F/8, as you suggested.
 * @IP: I kept the raw files, so fixing this should not be an issue. As for underlined text for emphasis, the MOS considers it poor writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake. 86.169.185.236 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it civil... As for distortion, I think you're being unreasonable. There are both benefits and drawbacks to cylindrical projection. Yes, some subjects suffer as a result of the curvature, but it's often the only way to capture a straight-on view of a subject when getting further back is not an option, which is the case in almost all photos of wide buildings on a regular sized street. They are only misleading if you cannot comprehend and visualise projections that are not rectilinear. I think you should be a little more open minded about it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is no place in Wikipedia for pictures that make straight buildings appear curved. As for the other matter, my comment was completely justified and I make no apologies. 86.169.185.236 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there is no place in Wikipedia for such a rigid approach to photography or illustration. All projections onto a 2D plane introduce distortion of some kind. That might be curving or incorrect angles or exaggerated perspective or compressed perspective, etc. All our images are confined to a flat box, unlike with our eyes. It is a judgement call. You are welcome to your opinions but please don't claim they are universally applicable or accepted. -- Colin°Talk 21:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Crisco, what kind of errors? Literally error messages that stopped the stitch process from completing, or issues with the alignment and blending? There shouldn't be any issue with using Hugin under Windows as far as I know. If you like, you could send me the files and I could try stitching them myself? Happy to if you don't mind. Just send me an email. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Errors which caused the stitching process to stop in its tracks. I'll ping you by email, although I probably won't be able to send the files until I get back home. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)