Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg

Watercolor of Cleveland Tower at the Graduate College, Princeton University edit

This watercolor shows Cleveland Tower as seen from just outside Procter Hall at the Old Graduate College in the noon autumn sun. The tower was built in 1913 as a memorial to former United States President Grover Cleveland, who also served as a university trustee. One of the largest carillons in the world, the class of 1892 bells, was installed in 1927. The Chapel Music program plays the bells Sunday afternoons during each semester, except during exam periods.

Reason: I, the painter, am posting a self nomination because two choices unusual for classical watercolor suit this painting particularly for illustrating the tower and the architectural style discussed in the article about Princeton University. Rather than use beige and gray splotches in a wet-on-wet technique to hint at the bricks, I used a fine brush to articulate the level of detail in the college's brickwork, which helps illustrate the collegiate gothic style. According to classical perspective, one would draw parallel lines for the vertical edges of the tower. However, this is inaccurate for lines that subtend a large angle over the field of view, and I preserved the curvature that one sees in reality in parallel lines giving a more accurate sense of the height of the tower.
Articles this image appears in: Princeton University
Creator: David Liao
Nominator: Dliao

Support — Dliao 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice and accurate picture. It's funny, I think a friend of mine did one from the exact same place once, arch included. Be aware that paintings don't generally go through this process, unless they're uber-famous. Mak (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. It's those awful trees in the courtyard. You can't move much to the left without them blocking the tower, and if you walk to the right, you walk right into the dining hall. The facilities and maintenance person told me everyone takes the picture from that spot. Dliao 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~sheepish~~ support - I'm inclined to support this. I think it delivers almost as much information about the place as a photo would. It is certainly a great painting. I think I am going to get wikibitten though... Debivort 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a photo from the same location, but I have not cleared it with the university's Office of Communications and Office of General Counsel. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/photopolicy.html Dliao 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it, well done! The detail of every stone is amazing- Adrian Pingstone 08:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm puzzled with the perspective that was chosen, because our brain automatically corrects this type of distortion. I wonder if you used a photograph to paint the scene. Alvesgaspar 08:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice perspective, color, detail, and medium. This is definitely an image unique to Wikipedia. I hope this inspires more wikipainters to contribute. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 13:27Z
Support a lovely, detailed painting, although the caption does have red links Ahadland 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Terrific, illustrative painting. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mad Max 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black shadowy portions in the top left and right hand corners (presumably the arch of some sort of entrance-way or corridor) is too distracting. It throws of the balance. The picture would have been equally encyclopedic (or more so) from a slightly different angle or crop that didn't include those corners as a framing device. The thumbnail gives it the look you would see in a crop of an image of extreme vignetting (such as in a fisheye lens). It is a nice painting though. (and I'd vote for it on the commons).-Andrew c 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) Hi Alvesgaspar. Indeed I painted the watercolor using a photograph, though I would say that my brain does not automatically correct for this curvature. Straight lines look curved to me, and I often draw them that way even when I'm not referring to photographs. My eyes also don't correct strongly for color temperature or color gradients. Pieces of paper look like orange sheets under incandescent light. They're shaded unevenly. I notice poorly adjusted monitors. I imagine this might be what it feels like for people who have perfect pitch to hear the same melody transposed from one key to another. (2) I should mention, Adrian Pingstone, that the stones are not accurate to the brick. I referred to order 10% of the bricks and stones from the photograph for accurate placement, and the rest were done to reproduce the basic distribution of shades, sizes, and shapes. Dliao 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After the author's explanation. I like the composition and colourinng. Alvesgaspar 09:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't read the whole thread, but it looks great, with fine detail. YechielMan 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me.--Here T oHelp 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read a little on handprint.com and thought about geometric optics. For a flat retina it's easy to show that rectilinear objects in the object plane project to rectilinear images. I haven't bothered to think about an eyeball whose retina is curved, and whose lens might (I don't know enough empirical anatomy) be distorted from the "ideal" lens to focus to a curved image surface. The curvilinear perspective is probably "real" to me because I wear a strong prescription for near-sightedness--I get significant fisheye lensing to which my brain cannot adapt. Dliao 05:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]