Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sari temple

Sari temple
Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014  at 01:35:02 (UTC)


 * Reason:As a way of saying sorry for the low-ish resolution on my last two self-nominations, I've decided to break your browsers with a multi-megapixel stitch of this 17 m tall Buddhist temple (possibly a former vihara). It's sharp, it's clear, and it's encyclopedic (just look at the reliefs!). What's not to love?
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sari temple, Candi of Indonesia, Kewu Plain
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Chris Woodrich


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Isn't it necessary for the photograph to be part of the article for a minimum of 7 days? Sanyambahga (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The image it replaced was both of objectively lower quality, and taken by me; the replacement should be singularly uncontroversial. That, and the article has had a total of five edits in the past six months, including 3 by me... not what one would call a hotbed of activity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Like the composition. Had some difficulty to enlarge it, while clicking on it twice... (Must be the some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution-thing) Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have to download the full file, usually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Great composition, ridiculous quality, good EV. Mattximus (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC*)
 * Support Angle seems good. ///Euro Car  GT  21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -- Godot13 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Converging verticals make the temple appear as if it is leaning backwards. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perspective again... will be back with an alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sanyambahga, an alt is up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it is the palm in the background that is leaning backwards that gives you this feeling. Cover the palm with your hand an see once more. Original best. Hafspajen (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Hafs re: this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ALT -- Sanyambahga (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I'm not going to insist that the image be completely perspective-corrected, because doing so may distort the building too much, but did the alt actually correct it at all? To me, it looks like the building's vertical lines are mostly corrected on the right side, but leans inwards significantly on the left side. In other words, you would need to rotate the image counter-clockwise so that both sides are leaning inwards equally, then correct the vertical perspective. But does the building lean inwards by design? I just wanted to ask, because I didn't want to assume that they should be completely vertical. Also, normally I wouldn't suggest downsampling, but the image is fairly soft at 100% and I think you could safely downsample to say 8000x5300 without a loss of actual detail. It would still be very high res but would be more manageable to download, as 50mb is a bit large. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it leans too dramatically, but there seems to be a bit of a lean ... I'll try playing with this a bit more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does. I put together a quick image to show you the lean (and other significant issues I discovered while looking closer). Rather than clog Commons up with it, I figured I'd upload it somewhere temporarily so you can see what I'm referring to. Click the 'download' button to view the full size image for more detail (I downsized it to 5000x3300 but you can still see the issues clearly at that resolution, and much more obviously at full resolution). It's based on the original image rather than the alt, but both images have the same issues to varying degrees. I suspect these issues were introduced to the image prior to stitching, as I can see that some of the artifacts have actually been distorted by the stitching process so that they are no longer 'rectangular'. I would suggest you go back to the original files, and do any processing work with them as TIF files until you're finally ready to 'save for the web'. This is good practice and minimises the chance of introducing any of these kinds of issues.
 * Oppose for now based on aforementioned technical issues with the image. If these could be solved, I may support. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdraw based on input from Diliff and others elsewhere. Apparently my raw files aren't working, so I will need to reshoot to get an FP quality image out of this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

--  S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * per withdraw   S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)