Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 09:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is an interesting church in London for a few reasons. Known originally as Burford's Panorama, it was originally built in the early 1800s as a local tourist attraction using cast iron construction. It was converted into a church by the Marist Fathers in the mid 1800s to support the growing French community in London. In the Second World War, it was heavily damaged and was repaired and redecorated in the 1950s by eminent French artists, hence the modernist interior design. -- Diliff (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I would crop from left some. --Mile (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Diliff (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• {Neutral}}  Oppose Excellent quality but too distorted to me 1: 1--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Fotoriety. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Ridiculous reason for oppose. Yes, there is distortion. But there is distortion in every. single. photograph. All photographs exhibit at least some distortion, be it leaning, or broadening of a subject, or what have you. This case may seem extreme, but it's quite well managed, especially compared to images such as this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Never heard the most ridiculous things ... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• And still respects the opinions of others .... it seems ridiculous--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect. --Code (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail all-around (like all your church interiors), complemented by the simplicity of the forms. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support We have nice distorted FPs of church interiors: 1, 2, 3 (but nothing against Livio ). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I obviously agree with Chris Woodrich. Distortions are not wrong and are always there to more or less extent. Only one may not like the result. - Benh (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Although it does not surprise me in the least, I'm surprised you did not see that are three (3) .... who knows why ...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Three of what exactly? I'm not following your comment. Diliff (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Livio, "one" means "any person". I only mean anyone is free to dislike the result. I'm not necessarily aiming at the three people who opposed or went neutral. - Benh (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure,and one country means the world....but please.be serious --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• As I explained below, Benh is right. In the context he used it, one doesn't mean the number one, it means people. Benh's use of the word 'only' before it does make it extra confusing and I think replacing 'only' with 'however' would be clearer, but he has used it correctly and a native English speaker would (probably) recognise the context properly. It's no surprise that the two people arguing against it are not native speakers of English. Why can't you just trust us that you misunderstood? Diliff (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• "one" means "any person"? Where? In our country probably...anyway you wrote :"Only one" but in your country what does it means? --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't really country-specific. Benh is right, it does mean "any person" in that context, generally and can easily be substituted for "you" (which in that context doesn't mean you specifically, it means people in general) and mean the same thing. See here, specifically definitions 19 to 21. I can see how it's confusing for non-native English speakers though. As you can see, the word has a lot of different definitions in different contexts. Diliff (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wow! A debate about word concepts at a picture nomination page. It's something new! :O 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• In a forum where English acts as a de facto common language and most contributors don't feel too comfortable with that language, I think it's good to take the time to clear up misunderstandings (and this is one!). Think we've all been there :) - Benh (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Livio is not a opposer of this nomination... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• But he is the reference by which the other opposers have justified their votes, and he has started a little argument about the use of English that he misunderstood... It still needs to be sorted out even if it isn't directly related to votes. Misunderstandings can quickly multiply (as the 'per' votes may show). Diliff (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I, when see that the picture is not FP, simply abstain from voting. Particularly, I was never opposer in any nomination. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose For others --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As a courtesy, can you explain your reasoning a bit more thoroughly? The first oppose was slightly vague and all subsequent opposes have directly referenced it with 'as per x'. You do realise that the room is not rectangular, right? It's curved. I just want to make sure that this 'extreme distortion' that people seem to be seeing isn't actually due to a misunderstanding of the geometry of the room. Diliff (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good work. It's nice that FoP allows to publish such a picture, when taken in UK. Not possible this side of the pond. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I know, the lack of FoP in France is very disappointing. I hope they unify the laws in all EU countries to provide universal FoP but I'm pretty sure it will be difficult to convince any countries to change their national laws given the current political climate in Europe. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Hashtag: #FoPEU !!!!!!!! More FoP = More FP Challenge ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Too distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Distortion is already Diliff style :) --Laitche (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just a wide angle perspective... Distortion is inherent in that. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I think many people do not understand the meaning of distortion. This is almost a perfectly rectilinear image. There is little or no distortion. dllu (t,c) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is. But not the same kind. As I already said, some projections keep lines straight, other keep proportions and/or areas... There always are some kind of tradeoff. But because we are used to small to medium FOV and rectilinear, as most lenses are, we find it unusual when seeing something fisheye, or rectilinear with a wide FOV... Just a matter of education. - Benh (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think what Dllu means is that there was no distortion other than normal rectilinear perspective distortion. I suspect he knows this as his user page says he's studied engineering physics and 3D graphics and geometry. That's a pretty good basis to understand geometric distortion. I agree that it's simply a matter of education. People are unfamiliar with views this wide. We think our eyes can see this wide (and in a weird way, they do give you that impression), but really we see a very narrow field of view at any time, and scan our eyes around a room to build a wide angle mental picture of the scene. This lets us 'cheat' perspective distortion because the image only exists as a concept in our minds. ;-) We never have to truly deal with keeping lines straight and vertical at the periphery of our vision. Diliff (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose I "don't like the result", and I hope that "matter of education" is not as offensive in a french translation as it could sound at first. I don't feel "miseducated", I just feel this picture unreal, like the other opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing that people might not like the result. I'm just trying to clarify that what people might be calling distortion is a misunderstanding that the room is actually curved and not rectangular. As for "education", it was a fellow Frenchman that mentioned it first. ;-) But read what I said above... I believe a lot of the discomfort that some people feel with a wide angle rectilinear view is because we're simply not familiar with it. It is 'real' in terms of geometry, it just isn't a view that the eye (and brain) usually sees and so I think some people have an instinctual reaction against it. I'm not saying you have to like the result. I just disagree that it isn't real. Of course less perspective distortion would be great, but you'd be sacrificing a lot of the interior space to avoid it. In a small interior, it's simply not possible to get further back to reduce the angle of view (and therefore perspective distortion) while maintaining the amount of the interior shown. Diliff (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not offensive. It's in the sense growing up with it, and so getting used to it. It's not in the sense "you are stupid and so cannot understand it. Just to be clear :) - Benh (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)