Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Theatre of Szeged

National Theatre of Szeged
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014  at 09:41:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:Highly descriptive and aesthetic photograph of a given landmark.
 * Articles in which this image appears:National Theatre of Szeged, Szeged, Fellner & Helmer
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:MrPanyGoff


 * Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nicely composed, perspective-corrected for verticals and shows the building in a pleasant manner. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Diliff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is a clear, useful photo of the building. However, when all the verticals are made parallel, then the vertical perspective is not "corrected". It is, in fact, destroyed. The vertical lines should always be allowed to converge a little, just as the Horizontals do, unless the photo is taken from a very long distance, which minimises the effect of perspective. Amandajm (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again your crusade that verticals should not be corrected. It is a matter of aesthetics and therefore a matter of opinion, but as I've mentioned before, this correction is an established practice in architectural photography, as per the article: "A tenet of architectural photography is the use of controlled perspective, with an emphasis on vertical lines that are non-converging (parallel). This is achieved by positioning the focal plane of the camera at so that it is perpendicular to the ground, regardless of the elevation of the camera eye. This result can be achieved by the use of view cameras, tilt/shift lenses, or post-processing". And as I have mentioned before, the effect is not 'unnatural' at all. The 'converging vertical lines' only occurs when the camera is tilted upwards, which most people instinctively do in order to centre the building the frame. However, the effect could be achieved simply by aiming the camera horizontally and cropping the road in the foreground. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Response - The camera is positioned low, so there would be some vertical convergence. Removing all of the convergence has the ultimate effect of making the building appear to splay out at the top, as it plainly does in this image. The eye of the viewer unconsciously registers the approximate height of the camera, and that become their eye-level. The building needs to respond appropriately to the eye level of the viewer. This means that there should be some convergence. The splaying is not severe in this case because it is a relatively box-like building, not very high for its width. One of the effects of making the verticals parallel is to lessen the apparent height of the building, and in some cases, destroy the proportions of the building altogether. There are some extreme cases on Commons. Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any major problem with proportions, as they appear similar to the 1904 image and other images on the web (if anything it rather appears taller). But the image could have a bit more sharpness, and is problematic when looking at the statues at the top, and even the one in foreground next to the corner. -- ELEKHHT 10:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per perspective. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You oppose per perspective but you don't explain what in the perspective bothers you?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The perspective as discussed at length above. For me, the parallel verticals make the building look way too splayed at the top. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is in general and none of the participants in it point out perspective problems that concern the photograph nominated here. The thoughts above mostly affect the high-rises.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)