Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/University of Coimbra

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:50:07 (UTC)

Reason: Detailed and good quality photograph of the University of Coimbra (probably the best available in Wikipedia) adding to various articles. Notice that no downsample was made with the purpose of apparently imprve sharpness (which is more or less common in Wikipedia).
Articles in which this image appears: Coimbra, University of Coimbra, Portugal, Portal:Portugal
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, it seems like the light was good, but yet again, the image seems underexposed. I suspect the surreal sky colours would be mitigated by raising the exposure. The sky should not be the focus of the image. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV. Tomer T (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be off topic, but I'd like to say that 2/3 of data from a picture are actually made up from interpolation of RAW data. So downsampling should be perfectly fine in most cases since we mainly loose imaginary data (Have no proof, just assumptions). Now about the pic itself, the lighting is a bit dull, and that's a strange projection here we have, with that curved ground. I like playing with projection in such ways, but don't think they fit the topic well (architecture) in the context of an encyclopedia. You should try General Panini, to minimize the horizontal distortion. I have found it to rescue me well in similar cases. - Blieusong (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed after that horizontal FOV is 92°. Since that the extreme lower end of a ultra wide angle (but still standard) lens, you could even switch to rectilinear IMO and still keep the stretching in the corners under control. - Blieusong (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, Benh. I have done what you suggested and the perspective is indeed better. The price to pay is the flag on top of the tower! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you went for equirectangular and looking slightly upward... sorry then (a reason I tend to take ridiculously huge margins now in such cases ;) ). Maybe you can keep the flag and fill hole with careful cloning? It's only sky to fill (easy as far as I can tell). - Blieusong (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload the version with the hole, I can edit in some sky. Then we can renom =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I mentioned lighting is a bit dull, I also tried to improve things a bit. Free for you to have a look (but don't use it, it was quickly made from jpeg). [1] - Blieusong (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]