Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal Sunset.jpg

Taj Mahal Sunset[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2012 at 17:10:14 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV. Golden hour lighting and a whooping 70+ mega pixels
Articles in which this image appears: Taj Mahal, Indo-Islamic architecture
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Support Alt-1 This is fantastic. The quality is amazing... I suggest a D&R to replace the current FP with this one. Excellent. Dusty777 19:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Carrier has arrived". Brandmeister^talk 19:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I'm getting the Starcraft reference here.... JJ Harrison (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would it take to get a picture without the minarets being distorted? Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From this view I'd say its probably impossible to get a picture without distortions. It's a battle between getting the minarets right or the symmetry of the Taj. A rectilinear projection gets the symmetry right but messes up the minarets even more. Cylindrical projection gets the minarets right but the symmetry is affected. [1] gave this a custom panini projection to reduce minaret distortion and get the symmetry correct as well --Muhammad(talk) 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg too. BTW, do we need separate FPs for sunrise, sunset, noon, night and full-moon? Jkadavoor (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a different view than our current FP, while the FP you link to has a very tight crop --Muhammad(talk) 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I always prefer a view where the religious symbols are clearly visible (just like a cross on top of a church). Here I wish to see the symbol with the half moon on the top of Taj Mahal instead of just a line. It is very clear in the other file I referred; and much more details even though a very tight composition. So Oppose. I've no problem if we've a plan to feature more than one picture though. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want religious symbols, this view has the howz. I think it would be best if multiple views are available as this gives more insight to the reader --Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the interesting info; but I can't find anything related to my comment above. When we take a portrait, we take it from the front; not from back or from a side. Am I right? (I expressed almost similar opinion here.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The howz is usually found near mosques, hence the religious symbolism. Re portrait, depends what one wants to capture. If you want a person's ponutail for instance, you wouldn't take a dead front show would you? --Muhammad(talk) 07:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again for teaching me more new words, but prefer an EOD for the time being; leaving to other's opinions. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the distortion mentionned by Saffron Blaze - Even in the thumbnail it looks wierd, and close up looks like a demolition job is in progress as the inner sides of both minarets are so much lower than the outsides... gazhiley 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit 1 now the distortion has been fixed. Thanks Muhammad. gazhiley 09:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what people have agains the distortions on the minarets. It's not so dramatic and I think it's good compromise, as per what Muhammad mentions. Not quite sure you can squeeze everything into the frame and avoid the distortions as far as my understanding of the local topography goes ~~[2]~~. Or can Saffron Blaze find a view of same side without the distortions (and not something looking upward please) ? And that view is complementary to the most usual one, so I think it's OK we don't see the moon (how far some people go to find reason to oppose...) - Blieusong (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to understand the author couldn't step back (sorry!) [3] - Blieusong (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 also. Either is fine to me. Just would like to point out that although it doesn't look like so, the warped version is less realistic (depending how u look at it) than the first. It would be like warping (or anything else) Antartica on a worldmap to make it look smaller. - Blieusong (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...And how fast the rescue team will arrive to save when one of their friend in danger. Is this almost like the support for support "rat race" in Flickr? Jkadavoor (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very mature of you Jkadavoor. Pessimism will get you nowhere --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do have sympathy for Muhammad and all his very good contributions. Hope this doesn't prevent me from supporting his work ;) (which I've also often opposed btw). - Blieusong (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing wrong for his sympathy for your very good contributions too. BTW, what a beautiful name you have! (I just noticed.) It is really like a song! Jkadavoor (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distortion is too distracting... Otherwise a lovely image. — raeky t 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm sympathetic to the distortion created by panoramas, particularly when there is no way to avoid them due to the subject's physical constraints. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't something be done in software to midigate or remove these distortions some? If not then would a non-panorama or not such a large one be better to represent this structure without the distortion? — raeky t 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe CS6 can do this. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a physical geometric constraint, not a matter of 'removing the distortions' in software. Panoramic stitching involves 'bending' the scene in order to project it on a flat plane. All photography has this limitation, however. The only thing that sets panoramic stitching apart is that you can create a wider frame than is usually possible with a single photo. Because of this, distortion is often greater than you would normally get in a single photo. But it doesn't mean that an equivalent single photo wouldn't have the same distortion, if the vertical lines were straightened as per architectural photography convention. Software cannot remove distortions, it can only minimise one kind of distortion at the expense of another by warping the scene, which would not help things in this instance, IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - To add to what Diliff wrote, the Photoshop CS 6 adaptive wide angle filter that you may be referring to applies (to my understanding) the principles of Panini projection. I redid a smaller res version in PS and applied the filter and the results were similar to this one here --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - These distortions are due to the wide angle of view, whether by a wide-angle lens or a wide projection from stitching software. It can be fixed by standing further back, provided that is possible. As the angle of view narrows, the distoritions diminish. There are pictures of this building without distorted minarets for the classic view from the south. I suspect (from Google Maps) that Muhammad had a wall behind him and could not increase the distance. Without hiring a helicopter. Or jet pack. :-) Colin°^Talk 12:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I was standing at the beginning of the mosque and moving further away from the Taj would have led to a blocked view. WHat's your view regarding the image Colin? --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the risk of repeating what others explained in nice way already : Author stood as far as he could from the subject (check map, I gave link above). So no choice, have to use wide angle to encompass everything. Wide angle comes with its amount of distortion. No magic. Again, just google a little, and hopefully you won't find many pic (if at all) of similar view, with the whole subject, all verticals so, and no distortion. Only way to avoid the stretching on the top of minarets would be to look upward, but I wouldn't trade the verticals for that here. - Blieusong (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone point me to the clause in the FP rules that say we can only have one FP per subject? It seems especially harsh for major subjects like this that might have excellent photographs from various angles, or rooms or times of day/year. Colin°^Talk 20:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Each image would have to be encyclopaedically used in an article. If you wish to be free of this constraint, may I direct you to Commons FPC? Samsara (FA • FP) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite aware of this. There are lots of pictures in the article including the current FP in the lead and this one further down. I'm responding to Dusty's comment that if this one is FP the other needs to go. And I don't support this one for the lead in the article, because it is not the classic view (albeit a valuable one). Colin°^Talk 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, "same subject" and "similar view" are different. Please read (and participate in) the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Similar_featured_pictures. We can't encourage "adding/keeping instead of replacing the existing one" just for the sake of an additional FP. I can't see much difference between the "view from south" and "view from west" because of the shape of the building. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It is a similar issue but I think the editorial decision over what images to include in the article belongs with the article writers, not FP and ultimately (should there be dispute) not with the image creator (who is naturally biased). Colin°^Talk 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes; but unfortunately I can't see much involvement of the article writers in most cases. They rarely know when an image is replaced. Most nominations here are from the photographers who placed the image in the article just a week before. I know there are exceptions (like Tomer) and highly appreciating them. (I made a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects regarding the importance of participation of subject experts here; but no results. I think they ignore this as a childish activity; because most promotions are not with proper review by them. They sometimes remove FPs from the article pages because of the same conflicting reasons.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense but you need to study images carefully before commenting. The view from the south shows all four minarets at once and the gardens before the Taj. The view from the west shows two minarets and the howz. I see EV in both the views --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~. Great picture which I supported at Commons, but the Taj Mahal is not something significantly different enough during sunset to have two different FPs IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned before, this shows some different aspect of the Taj. Nonetheless, the current FP is of considerably inferior quality and composition than this one --Muhammad(talk) 16:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't notice the different perspective, so support edit1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 As it resolves the original concern and is of a different perspective than the current FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 I'm glad to see this coming back. I don't think that the edit is perfect but I think it's better, and we can always do a D&R later if something better comes along. I think this photo has enough factors in its favor to support. --Pine^✉ 17:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Taj Mahal Sunset Edit1.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]