Support as nominator – Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - The shadows are too distracting for me to give full support. Otherwise the technical quality is excellent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as on Commons. High quality, high resolution image of the subject. -- Colin°Talk 07:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As per Chris Woodrich, but leaning more towards oppose, as I'd prefer a slightly elevated view to minimise impact of the wall that runs in front of the building - this would also remove the shadow impact to an extent. I'm not saying massively high up, just maybe level with the top of the wall so we can see the extent of it... Standing on a car roof or back of a van would be sufficient... Can be easily re-taken IMO so I lean towards Oppose... gazhiley 07:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
gazhiley: Thanks for your review. The photo cannot be easily retaken at a viewpoint from a car or van as then you would be further back and the trees surrounding the school would obstruct the view. And obviously a car or van on the football field (which is in a through 2 m down) in front would not be allowed and only worsen the problem. The photo is based on a row of 8 photos in portrait format each taken with three different exposures using an ordinary tripod in its most erected position. If I had gone to extremes and brought a ladder, I would not have had the mechanical stability needed to take such a shot and in order to avoid parallax errors. It is taken at the most optimal possible viewpoint reachable with normal amateur equipment. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Slaunger, I disagree that the photo can easily be retaken from a higher viewpoint. Most photographs of buildings would benefit from an elevated viewpoint but this is rarely possible in practice, short of hiring a cherry picker. It should not be used as a reason to oppose, any more than "would be better if you had Zeiss glass" is a reasonable oppose. gazhiley, standing on a car roof with a tripod, apart from being utterly ridiculous, would lower the wall by about one brick wrt the building behind it. I'm concerned with these reviews that en:FP is merely an armchair photographer forum, where one can find faults and offer ill-considered "advice" rather than somewhere that is concerned with celebrating encyclopaedically excellent images of article subjects. -- Colin°Talk 09:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Slaunger and Colin. Might be nice to have, but it's not feasible. Slaunger's suggestion at the Commons nomination (come back at a slightly later time) would have probably been best. My Thomas Parr Monument image would have found its way here if I'd been able to wait just half an hour. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that I see your points composition wise Slaunger & Colin, I retract my vote and objection... However, please do not cast any unjust insinuations about this forum and it's inhabitants (although I guess it's aimed firmly in my direction in this particular case)... Personally I like to think that although I cannot afford a good enough camera to take the sort of photographs that appear here, I know enough about what I am talking about to be able to contribute... Please feel free to check my history, and the numerous pictures I have voted on... In more cases than not the points I've raised have been supported by others, and I doubt I hold enough weight around here for that to be based on anything other than that what I'm saying makes sense... I admit that isn't always the case, as this particular nomination shows... But given the annoyance I am currently feeling at this particular insinuation I will withdraw my vote rather than amend it... gazhiley 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
gazhiley, well this example clearly shows you don't necessarily "know enough about what [you are] talking about" and should consider more carefully what you write. How about just judging the image rather than lecturing Slaunger on how to take a better photo. While some advice from experts is useful at times, it is way to easy to end up judging an image by how one thinks it could be improved, rather than simply for what it is. I was hoping more for contrition than annoyance from you, a reaction that suggests you don't quite get how offensive was your ignorant suggestion and comment about how easy such an image is to make. -- Colin°Talk 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Clarify, although I agreed with both points of views, the insinuations I referred to were from Colin not Slaunger... Apols to Slaunger that that wasn't clear... gazhiley 11:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows, composition. --PetarM (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PetarM: Thanks for your review. May I ask what you find is improvable in the composition? -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Outward shadows in all front. Too many trees on side...very wide compo which is not made from the centre make it "leaning". I would crop from both sides to get rid of some trees.--PetarM (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PetarM: Thanks for explaining what you meant. I think I will leave the crop as is, as I find the building would be too crammed if cropped more on the sides leaving it too little space to breathe within the frame. I do not quite understand what you mean with '...which is not made from the centre make it "leaning"' as the composition is perfectly centered, but maybe I misunderstand you. For me the trees are also important as they frame the entire area and help you understand the origin of the shadows in the foreground. With the sun almost directly from behind I get the most even illumination of the subject without too much shadows from the protruding buildings. By taking it in the morning, when this is fulfilled I also get soft, pleasant light. The tradeoff is the shadows in the foreground. If I move close to get rid of the foreground shadows I move down into a two meter depression, which will spoil the view to the inner yard behind the columns. If I crop the shadows I will ruin a nice rule-of-thirds composition vertically. I think that for a neoclassical building where symmetry is an important architectural element it is important to be rigid in the composition. Nevermind, I respect you opinion and view on this, and I do not expect you to further respond to my long and ongoing ramblings over this - for me nearly ideal - representation of the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger Why not to respond, if putting minus i feel obligated. OK, sometimes i see ridicilous small angles or unequal distances even at thumb. That will left you techincal drawing for 4 years. Where 1 mm was like 1 cm, and missed degree of angle A LOT. I saw that earlier, but i dont grade all photos. It was very obvious to me its more from left side of centre. When longer lines arent correlated, they seems like to lean. Here is one proof of it...i will erase it after observing it. --PetarM (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PetarM Thanks for taking your time to illustrate the asymmetries in the crop-out you have uploaded and annotated on flickr! You do have a valid observation there. I am just not sure how I could have solved it as the setup is not entirely symmetrical. My main focus was to have the statue between the pillars alligned with the middle of the front door. Had I instead aimed at making the distances you have marked equally large by moving the viewpoint very slightly to the south (left, when facing the facade), the statue would have been very noticeably misaligned relative to the center door. I think more noticeably misaligned that the unequal distances you have annotated. But I agree it is sometimes amazing how ridiculously small misalignments you can spot in thumb when you are trained for it. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Nothing technically wrong with pic., but (sorry) I too find the viewpoint / composition rather staid and bland. (Perhaps some human presence on the playing field would help?) Also, the brief article devotes only the last two paragraphs to the structure – which seems to be the raison d'être for this particular photo. EV? Sca (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
