Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England

Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England


This is an image I took in July this year but only successfully stitched it very recently. The main thing that people may find a problem is the perspective. Due to the extremely wide angle view in this image, I needed to stitch it with spherical perspective, meaning the left side curves around. I have tried to minimise the distortion and I feel this is still a worthy image with plenty of detail and great architecture - The Roman Baths at ground level (only the bath itself and the column supports are Roman - the rest of the structure was built in the 18th century when it was re-discovered) and Bath Abbey in the background.


 * Nominate and abstain. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit 1 I noticed this on the Bath article a few days ago and thought it was excellent. A few more of the images on Bath are also FPC worthy IMO. Edit 1 looks unnatural. chowells 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Perfect quality, good encyclopedic value. Nautica Shades (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Edited for color, contrast, and to 'polarize' the sky.--Andrew c 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above - boy that water looks ... therapeutic. Debivort 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. (I am amazed by the variety and quality of photos you offer.) Having recently read of the dangers of too many versions, I have nevertheless offered an "edit 2" (of the original, placed below it because it's more similar than "edit 1") that, to me, has a "straighter" horizon; I also noticed a halo over the righmost statue's head, and a spot in the sky, that have been cloned into submission. Not wanting to go overboard, I have adjusted nothing else, although I am for a somewhere-between-Diliff-and-Fir/Andrew adjustment to levels/saturation. Finally, if this improves nothing, feel free to remove the edit for simplicity. – Outriggr § 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that edit, it looks good. I didn't notice the halo above the head of the statue until now - I think it may have been a glitch in the stitching. I'm not sure that the panorama needed straightening, but perhaps it did - I didn't measure it exactly. The saturation of the sky was a touchy thing while I was processing it. I had to decrease the contrast a little to bring out the very deep shadows on the bottom right side without blowing the sky out with overexposure, but I think the sky perhaps suffered in the process. Your edit 2 seems about right - Edit 1 is a bit over saturated. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still feel edit 2 is a bit dull in the sky and on some of the distant stonework. Would it help if I worked on that edit, but less saturated than edit 1? I'm new to this, and seeing FP like this, this, and this and basically every other FP, I figured a bit of a faux-polarization, and beefing up the saturation wasn't problematic. All that said, I still think the current edit is a little on the dull said and personally wouldn't mind a minor edit (even if less dramatic than my first).--Andrew c 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, edit 1 has too "flashy" sky color. --Janke | Talk 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Despite a small amount of lens distortion. HighInBC 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maybe I don't get it, but this picture does nothing for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Edit 1 is oversaturated. Nautica Shades (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.png|15px]] Neutral Great looking scene, but I feel it would have been better taken as a single shot and avoiding the rather significant bending in you panorama. Also seems oversharpened. For the record though, I personally think Edit 1 is a significant improvement, although it would benefit from the rotation of Edit 2 --Fir0002 11:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you underestimate the angle of view in this image. If you took just a single photo, you would end up with something like this, the previous image of the baths. To truely incoporate all the elements of this image into a single shot, you need either an ultra-wide angle, probably fish-eye, and then you end up with the same 'faults' as this image, minus the clarity of a high resolution stitch. As long as the viewer doesn't literally expect that the baths are really that shape (and there are enough visual cues to suggest it is just spherical perspective distortion), I don't think the curves are a big problem. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I may have underestimated it, but just out of interest, what focal length did you use for each frame in the panorama? Because I think with your full frame sensor and the 17-40L you would have got pretty close to that angle of view. --Fir0002 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Would prefer a combination of Edit 1 & 2 as well. Also, I know you've acknowledged there's a curve on the left, but is it just me or is the curve bigger at the water level than at the window level above? That's a little offputting. --jjron 13:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The curve is only greater at water level because it has a larger deviation from the horizon (the horizontal focal point of this panorama). Likewise, the vertical centre of the frame is the vertical focal point, so the curve is also accentuated as the view extends from the centre to either side. Its just the effect of perspective. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thought that may have been the case - just glad I'm not seeing things. --jjron 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edits. The original is fine, no need to tamper around and juice up the colors etc. --Dschwen 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)