Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sparrenburg Castle

Sparrenburg Castle from the western lawn

 * Reason:A high resolution mosaic of a popular recreation spot in Bielefeld. Much of the city was destroyed during WWII and few historic sites remain, the Sparrenburg being one of them.
 * Articles this image appears in:Sparrenburg Castle
 * Creator:Dschwen


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Dschwen 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the rather ugly lamp post, one of the people at the bottom walking, and the overall composition don't really seem to help this make the grade. Nice enough shot but not FP quality IMHO. Pedro | Chat  10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the lamppost exists, editing it out would make the image inaccurate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I don't think the lamp post really distracts from the scene. I suspect there may be an exposure issue though. The grass is much darker on the left quarter of the frame. Not sure if it was an issue with the length of exposure on that segment or whether a cloud obscured the sun while photographing the scene (the bane of multi segment photography!). That said, it isn't that obvious unless you're looking for it. Otherwise a good shot. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support When it's not from diliff, it's from dschwen. ack Diliff on the dark grass, but I don't think either that's such a big issue. I like composition and technical quality. Some people may be surprised to see themselves on a FP :) Blieusong 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Rather impresive shot, my first reaction to the full size was that the sky was very fake but actualy it's not too bad. Anyway, the DOF is huge and there is no grain from using high a high ISO setting, also there is no real motion blur on the people is the shutter was long. it looks like a bright day but still you (or your camera) did a great job with the exposure. -Fcb981 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice the dark grass until i read diliff's vote, interesting- Fcb981 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurry in some points. Flubeca 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, you gotta be a little more specific than that. Where is the blur that vindicated an oppose??! --Dschwen 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -Catches the eye. beutifull. there are lamp posts in many historic places. i don't thin kthe lamp post really affects the photo. -Nelro 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. All the people in the shot are distracting to me. Perhaps there's another angle? - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt it, and it would completely misrepresent the subject. I know, folks from certain contries go nuts about every hut thats older than 200 years, build a fence around it, put actors in costumes inside, and have a friendly park ranger explain the history to school classes. But this castle is no sacred historical preserve. Despite being over 750 years old it is a gathering spot where tons of people hang out, enjoy the view and the weather. --Dschwen 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Very nice colors, contrast and illustrates the subject quite well; only problem is that ugly lamp post, it seems to ruine the image; well, auctually it doesn´t really ruine the entire image reputation, but it certainly ruines it´s attempt for being a featred picture in my opinion... But, I will remia neutral due to the other feautures, which ar excellent. ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sorry, the people spoil it for me. Witty Lama 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Blieusong. If a noteworthy topic normally is surrounded by people, why shouldn't the people be in the picture showing the topic? I also don't think the lamp post - probably used to illuminate the castle by night, and at least to me helps illustrate how the area looks today - should disqualify the picture. highlunder 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose uninteresting camera angle/composition. Nothing artistically or technically interesting about this photo.  High resolution is not enough for FP. --jacobolus (t) 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Support per Fcb981, although a dawn shot with no-one around would be better =p. FP does NOT have to be interesting. I don't find a picture of a spider with various parts blurred or a clichéd postcard Tower Bridge picture very interesting, but that's no reason to oppose it. --antilivedT 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would have supported the nomination if it werent people in the picture. --Albanau 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Agree it would be better without people. Also, the geometry looks a little weird after the geometric correction. But the composition is nice and the quality of the pano very good. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose E7   T9   A5  QP, not FP. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but it seems to have some sort of perspective distortion. The tower (and the flag pole at the top) seem to lean out to the left towards the top of the image, while at the bottom right the cars look "squashed" and the same can be said some of the people on the far left. Otherwise, I really like this photo - Dschwen is right to say that the people are part of the enc and I like the way the castle is a surprisingly congruous part of a modern scene. I'll support if someone can do something about the perspective. --YFB ¿  00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot to respond to this one. Check Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_western_lawn.jpg, a separate shot of the tower. You'll see that the flag pole is not parallel to the center axis of the tower. It seems to be slightly tilted. This is not an artifact of the stitching or perspective correction. --Dschwen 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the flag pole tilt isn't due to perspective but I still find the image distorted-looking. Diliff might be able to explain better what I'm on about (he's on holiday 'til Wednesday) but basically I think the perspective isn't fully corrected-for. Still a great image, I'll hold off supporting until I at least get the opinion of a projection-expert :-) --YFB ¿  23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware my services were required! ;-) I'm hardly a projection expert but I think I do see the same phenomenon that YFB does. The image is quite a complicated one to compare though, since there are so many angles and shapes to consider the effects of projection on. Comparing the single image with the panoramic one, you can see that they were taken from different points, so it is hard to compare apples with apples. The tower appears oval shaped in the panorama but circular in the single image, but this could be because you are looking straight at the sharpest side of the oval whereas the panorama is looking at the transition from sharp to soft curve, resulting in a strange looking tower shape. Google Maps doesn't give you quite enough detail to determine this. There is also a another issue that I think YFB was refering to, which is a slight curve in the vertical walls of the tower in the panorama that doesn't exist in the single image - at least, there are slight curves but these seem mainly inwards due to the perspective, rather than by projection distortion, whereas the dominant curve on the left wall of the tower in the panorama is slightly to the right, then vertical then a strong shift to the left towards the top. It seems as though the initial inwards lean is simply minor perspective distortion but then as you look further up, a curve towards the left occurs. All of this could be simply the result of a slightly warped tower wall, but even though the view is from a different angle, it doesn't have this problem in the single image so I'm not sure what to make of it. The jury is out here too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simply an effect of the rectilinear projection, similar to the Smithsonian nomination a few weeks ago. The distortion is not visible in the sigle frame, as the towertop is at a lower angular distance from the image center. The single frame is taken at a slightly different angle (maybe 10-20°), but the tilt of the flagpole is more or less tha same. So it is like comparing boskop with granny smith :-). --Dschwen 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I see what you are saying, but if the tower was circular and not oval/oblong shaped, with rectilinear projection surely the ring around the top of the tower would have horizontally opposed vanishing points on either side of the tower and therefore would have a horizontal 'line' between them? The only reason I can think of for the two points on either side to not be horizontal is if the tower is not circular. You're the one with a Physics PhD, but I don't see the logic of it with my less advanced geometry knowledge... ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't find the lens warping of the tower distracting: I think it helps give some sense of scale. I would PREFER it without the people, but they don't detract too much from this one. --Vaelta 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think the people add to the photo because they give it more life, and also their modern dress contrasts well with the old building.  Since this is a photo of how this castle looks today, I think the lamppost and the parked cars are OK to have in the photo.  Spebudmak 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wow, that guy sure has a lot of armpit hair... erm... I mean the details are fantastic. :) · AndonicO Talk 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support high resolution, good detail, and overall a nice shot. Lorax 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sunshine Man 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

please recount, I count 6 opposes, 12 supports, and 1 conditional support --Dschwen 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose. Yes, it's high resolution...but that's about it. Not especially creative, beautiful or original. Theonlyedge 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is just unfair. The voting period is over (it is in the category Ended featured picture nominations) and this nomination should have been closed properly. Had it been, the pic would be FP by now and no more voting would be allowed. --Dschwen 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Fir0002 10:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

--trialsanderrors 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)