Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg
Already is an FP, but I think it would be better if someone rotated it a bit so that the palace would run parallel to the edge of the image. Don't know where else to put this. If it does not get fixed, I will nominate this for delisting, as this is a photo of acommon subject, poorly executed. Also, there is no link to the promotion discussion.
- Articles this image appears in
- Several, but that is not the point...
- Creator
- Solipsist
- Suggested by
- Nezzadar [SPEAK] 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments
- Have repaired the link to the FPC nom (it got lost somewhere back in the edits when something else got removed). Re the fixes I'm not sure what you're saying - are you suggesting the bottom of the building should be parallel to the bottom of the image? If so, I don't think that can be 'fixed' very effectively, as that is due to the image being taken on an angle from beside that bridge. --jjron (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- What make this image poorly executed? When these guys that know about photography complain about having a tilted horizon is usually in frontal pictures, in which the inclination is really misleading of the real position of the subject, or in cases in which it produces some problems with the shape of the objects ( which in general doesn't have to be a problem but the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia requires). At the beginning I saw a problem with that thing visible in the river. I thought it was a dog swimming but I thing it is a rock. In any case that can be cropped if you really want. Franklin.vp 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do this experiment. Look and the bridge. There some rectangular holes underneath facing the photographer. You will see that the sides of those rectangles are perfectly parallel to those of the frame. So the tilt that you are seen is indeed perspective. It is actually a very good picture. Franklin.vp 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The building is photographed obliquely, so the far end looks smaller than the near end and I think everyone will understand this. I do not think that the photograph should be changed except to straighten some of the verticals. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder
