Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Viborg Cathedral, Denmark

Viborg Cathedral, Denmark[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2013 at 20:58:24 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, high quality and well-illuminated photo of the difficult to photograph (due to wide-field-of-view and shadows) Western facade of Viborg Cathedral, Denmark
Articles in which this image appears: Viborg Cathedral
FP category for this image: Architecture
Creator: Slaunger

Support as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the cathedral has several nearby buildings, it is challenging to capture it illuminated without distracting shadows. However, in June the sun is sufficiently high in the evenings to just allow for a uniform soft evening light on the granite surface of the Western wall - when sunny. Furthermore, you have to get quite close in order to get an unobstructed view of this facade, and you get a quite wide field of view. I have done my best to find a reasonable compromise between geometric distortions and this wide field of view. The off-centered view was chosen as I could use the stairs of a building at that position to get some more elevation and look over the parked cars. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, it looks like a tough building to get a picture of, especially with the parking lot running the whole way up to its door. But, do you happen to know from which vantage point this image was taken from? Cowtowner (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Thanks for the question. That photo is for sure taken from an airborne object and illustrates the Northern and Western facades. There are no vantage points, which allows you to look down on the cathedral like that. The parking lot is usually almost filled, and getting a combination of evening sun, June-July and a low number of cars is hard. --Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the response; I'll bite and support as it seems exceptionally difficult/unlikely to get a better view. Cowtowner (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The soft evening light the photographer has taken care to capture does give an attractive warmth to the stone, but it also has the effect of minimizing visible detail of the masonry and architecture. But the big problem are those ranks of parked cars - this may be a "low number"of them but they are still too obtrusive. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am fine with your oppose argument due to the cars (as sometimes you can get lucky and be there with fewer cars), but I have to object to "...but it also has the effect of minimizing visible detail of the masonry and architecture". The photo is an exposure fused stitch using three different exposures to get the best possible image dynamics and capture all details. The photo is over 75 Mpixels, and of course if you look at it in full resolution, where you can only have a fraction of the photo on your screen, you will see pixel-by-pixel softness due to the sensor and lens, as I have done no downsampling. If you look at this in a resolution, where you have the entire photo or just the full width in your screen, I would claim it is crisp from the base of the building to the top. Had I chosen more bright daylight (earlier in the day), there would have been blown highlights and I could not get so good illumination of all surfaces on the facades due to the direction of the sun. Overcast would have been an option as well, but would have given dull light. --Slaunger (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree; this is a very good picture, and we need to be pragmatic to the subject being taken. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]