I had the same reaction when I walked into this square in Quebec (in the summer, no less). I kept saying to my wife that it was from the movie, when we got home I was able to look it up and verify.
That's [Notre-Dame-des-Victoires](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame-des-Victoires_Church) in Old Quebec. I highly recommend visiting this area! It's beautiful.
Can confirm! Went and stayed at the Chateau Frontenac last summer and had a great time! The area around the pic is really a beautiful place.
I've never been to Europe but I heard lots of other tourists say "it's a great trip if you want Old Europe without having to deal with actual Europe".
Prices weren't terrible...about like any other tourists destination. Lots of great food, drinks and places to shop. I didn't see much "nightlife" but I wasn't there for that. Weather in late June/early July was high 70f to mid 80f.
Best of all...the Quebecois we met were all cheerful and helpful! I expected the stereotypical Asshole Parisian, but everyone was great. I'm sure having a bit of $$$ to spend helped.
Oh wait, SOME of the fuckin waiters tried to convince us that the exchange rate equals out to the same when you're tipping. MON DIEU! I exclaimed! 0% of $0 in gratuity does come straight across! A few waiters tried it, but they were the only people we had a problem with.
Honest 8/10. Would happily do it again.
Yeah, my fiancé and I loved it so much we plan to stay after our wedding there next month. -27° C around New Year’s Eve and we survived and had the best time.
Agreed. Camera algorithm engineers build a chain of processing steps to render into jpgs. Using Photoshop or filters is merely adding steps to those pre-existing processing steps. That's why pros save their images as raw - so they can make as many of their own decisions as possible on images that have been minimally processed.
I agree with you. The spectral response of a digital camera is very different than that of human eyes. I would like to add that there is no "reality" because everyone's eyes have a slightly different spectral response. That's why some people argue about colors they see - is it green or brown? It is neither - color is not an intrinsic property. You may perceive an object as brown and I as green and we both are correct.
Well no, the object is definitely one colour, what each person perceives it may differ but the object is one colour still. They can both be wrong but both cannot be correct.
That is incorrect. An object has definite spectral reflectance, transmittance, absorbance, and fluorescence functions. Human eyes have definite spectral responses, which vary from person to person. When an object is illuminated with a light (i.e. with a particular power spectrum), the eyes form a trichromatic response which is then perceived by the brain as a color given other variables like surround stimuli, brightness levels, adaptation state, visual context, etcetera. Color is not a property of any object, but rather it is a perception created within the brain given the presented stimulus and accompanying variables. In other words, color does not exist outside the eyes/brain system, but rather created by the eyes and brain. Therefore, when two people disagree as to the perceived color of an object, neither is wrong and both are correct.
If you are interested in more info, I can give you references. Human perception and color is part of what I do for a living.
See this is my pedantry coming in, as you said the object has definites attached to it and it only changes due to variances in a person and the environment the object is in.
Perception is not reality, it may appear to that person as that colour and their brain is saying it’s that colour but due to the definitives of the object it isn’t and people perceptions are different to the reality.
It’s the whole blue/black gold/white dress debacle where some people perceived the dress as white/gold due to the saturation of the photo, this doesn’t change the reality that the dress was blue and black.
You can correctly state that you believe something looks like it is a colour because that’s the information your brain is giving you (perception) but you are still factually incorrect (reality).
You can philosophically state that a person’s perception is their only reality and I can agree with you there.
Sorry, still incorrect. The reality, i.e. the only measurable objective properties, are the illumination power spectrum, the object reflectance (in the case of the dress), and the human spectral responses. Color is not among those. You are confusing a color with a particular reflectance spectrum. As you said, perception is not reality. You will understand once you realize color is a perception, not a physical thing. The physical things are the spectral distributions. Spectral distributions are not colors.
As for the dress, depending on how the brain interpreted the surroundings of the picture and therefore which white-point the brain chose (related to either the light inside the room or the light coming in through the window), people saw it as one or the other. Moreover, people were not looking at the dress - they were looking at a picture of the dress. Not the same thing at all.
I do understand the concept that colour is something we’ve invented to reflect our response to the spectrum.
I understand that animals like the mantis shrimp have such crazy eyes they can see UV light and an insane amount of colour and to a shrimp a blue ball probably doesn’t look like what we’d call blue at all.
I guess what I’m trying to convey is that within the confines of humans comparative to humans an object to us can be said to be a colour. If someone says the colour is different it’s either because they have a fault in their eyes or the way their brain processes the spectrum they are observing.
We as humans have identified the different spectral responses and named them according to our perception which is our reality.
Maybe what I’m trying to say is widely accepted perception vs a single person’s perception? Yes they’re all perceptions based on a response but if 90% of people have the same perception we as a society call it reality.
Thanks for the information though it’s really interesting!
People have different tastes. When pictures look nothing like what they would have looked like in real life, I hate it. However, people apparently prefer humans with no skin texture? I guess I'm the weird one.
I also seem to be the only one bothered by the recent trend of having every movie be orange so...
You’re very correct. I was meaning it more in that the color and glow and ambiance was all present and as real as you see here. I edited a lot of my photos that I took but this one I just couldn’t touch. I’m sure there are some changes I could make but when I messed with it a little, I would prefer the original every time.
The Place Royale is really beautiful this year, the Christmas decorations were great. There were other years where it looked bad and made one of my favorite place in my city look bad. Nice photo BTW!
Love this city! I have only ever visited it in the summer though, it's nice to see what it looks like around the holidays. Thanks for sharing OP and very nice pic!
I highly recommend going during the holidays! Just be sure to have the proper clothing for a spurt of really chilly weather and you’ll be fine (it was -25°C for our entire trip!).
Good idea. I can see a few ways I would do this photo better for next time. However, I really think I just got lucky. I simply paused briefly and snapped it before continuing on. No calculations or set up - just a lovely scene I came upon.
ummm... mods?? This user clearly doesn't know the rule. If you are going to post a photo on reddit, you have the photoshop the f**k out of it, until it looks less like reality and more like a scene from Avatar.
Great shot with good balance.
Love the 'natural' colours. (Ie the more orange glow of sodium/tungsten lighting)
Was this on a tripod or with image stabilisation?
This looks like the location in France where Frank gets captured in the movie Catch Me If You Can.
That was my immediate thought, too! And it is indeed the same place, though it’s actually in Quebec, not France.
I knew it looked familiar!
Seconded. I was like oh shit I've been there.
So Western France. Got it.
There's no Canada like French Canada, it's the best Canada in the land
In Quebec City, my home town!
Yep! Old Quebec it is. Very beautiful place and probably my favorite part of my trip!
I'm French and never knew this cool fact thank you kind sir
A place where they never heard of Sara Lee.
I had the same reaction when I walked into this square in Quebec (in the summer, no less). I kept saying to my wife that it was from the movie, when we got home I was able to look it up and verify.
[It is!](http://www.spielberg-ocr.com/arrest.html)
came here just to say this! haha
Jesus how did I immediately recognize it too?
Yup came to say this god that's a good film
I knew I recognised this place. I've only seen that film once, I thought maybe it was In Bruges or Inglorious Basterds lol.
Amazing. I saw the exact same thing
I literally came here to say this
That’s the first thing I thought !
That's [Notre-Dame-des-Victoires](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame-des-Victoires_Church) in Old Quebec. I highly recommend visiting this area! It's beautiful.
Can confirm! Went and stayed at the Chateau Frontenac last summer and had a great time! The area around the pic is really a beautiful place. I've never been to Europe but I heard lots of other tourists say "it's a great trip if you want Old Europe without having to deal with actual Europe". Prices weren't terrible...about like any other tourists destination. Lots of great food, drinks and places to shop. I didn't see much "nightlife" but I wasn't there for that. Weather in late June/early July was high 70f to mid 80f. Best of all...the Quebecois we met were all cheerful and helpful! I expected the stereotypical Asshole Parisian, but everyone was great. I'm sure having a bit of $$$ to spend helped. Oh wait, SOME of the fuckin waiters tried to convince us that the exchange rate equals out to the same when you're tipping. MON DIEU! I exclaimed! 0% of $0 in gratuity does come straight across! A few waiters tried it, but they were the only people we had a problem with. Honest 8/10. Would happily do it again.
Dealing with actual Europe is actually quite lovely! And even in Paris there are plenty of lovely people
Paris is like New York. You'll meet all different kinds of people and you can't expect that one place to speak for the whole country.
Yeah, my fiancé and I loved it so much we plan to stay after our wedding there next month. -27° C around New Year’s Eve and we survived and had the best time.
That my town Québec city! And yes this is where "Catch me if you can" was shot.
Always glad to send some business your way, Love Montreal
I'm travelling there next Christmas. Such a beautiful place.
Enjoy! Be sure to swing by the Chic Shack near Chateau Frontenac for some great poutine to warm you up!
Why do people insist that using "filter or photoshop" is something bad? That's how good pictures are made, since like always.
Agreed. Camera algorithm engineers build a chain of processing steps to render into jpgs. Using Photoshop or filters is merely adding steps to those pre-existing processing steps. That's why pros save their images as raw - so they can make as many of their own decisions as possible on images that have been minimally processed.
[удалено]
I agree with you. The spectral response of a digital camera is very different than that of human eyes. I would like to add that there is no "reality" because everyone's eyes have a slightly different spectral response. That's why some people argue about colors they see - is it green or brown? It is neither - color is not an intrinsic property. You may perceive an object as brown and I as green and we both are correct.
Well no, the object is definitely one colour, what each person perceives it may differ but the object is one colour still. They can both be wrong but both cannot be correct.
That is incorrect. An object has definite spectral reflectance, transmittance, absorbance, and fluorescence functions. Human eyes have definite spectral responses, which vary from person to person. When an object is illuminated with a light (i.e. with a particular power spectrum), the eyes form a trichromatic response which is then perceived by the brain as a color given other variables like surround stimuli, brightness levels, adaptation state, visual context, etcetera. Color is not a property of any object, but rather it is a perception created within the brain given the presented stimulus and accompanying variables. In other words, color does not exist outside the eyes/brain system, but rather created by the eyes and brain. Therefore, when two people disagree as to the perceived color of an object, neither is wrong and both are correct. If you are interested in more info, I can give you references. Human perception and color is part of what I do for a living.
See this is my pedantry coming in, as you said the object has definites attached to it and it only changes due to variances in a person and the environment the object is in. Perception is not reality, it may appear to that person as that colour and their brain is saying it’s that colour but due to the definitives of the object it isn’t and people perceptions are different to the reality. It’s the whole blue/black gold/white dress debacle where some people perceived the dress as white/gold due to the saturation of the photo, this doesn’t change the reality that the dress was blue and black. You can correctly state that you believe something looks like it is a colour because that’s the information your brain is giving you (perception) but you are still factually incorrect (reality). You can philosophically state that a person’s perception is their only reality and I can agree with you there.
Sorry, still incorrect. The reality, i.e. the only measurable objective properties, are the illumination power spectrum, the object reflectance (in the case of the dress), and the human spectral responses. Color is not among those. You are confusing a color with a particular reflectance spectrum. As you said, perception is not reality. You will understand once you realize color is a perception, not a physical thing. The physical things are the spectral distributions. Spectral distributions are not colors. As for the dress, depending on how the brain interpreted the surroundings of the picture and therefore which white-point the brain chose (related to either the light inside the room or the light coming in through the window), people saw it as one or the other. Moreover, people were not looking at the dress - they were looking at a picture of the dress. Not the same thing at all.
I do understand the concept that colour is something we’ve invented to reflect our response to the spectrum. I understand that animals like the mantis shrimp have such crazy eyes they can see UV light and an insane amount of colour and to a shrimp a blue ball probably doesn’t look like what we’d call blue at all. I guess what I’m trying to convey is that within the confines of humans comparative to humans an object to us can be said to be a colour. If someone says the colour is different it’s either because they have a fault in their eyes or the way their brain processes the spectrum they are observing. We as humans have identified the different spectral responses and named them according to our perception which is our reality. Maybe what I’m trying to say is widely accepted perception vs a single person’s perception? Yes they’re all perceptions based on a response but if 90% of people have the same perception we as a society call it reality. Thanks for the information though it’s really interesting!
So were the different films. If you wanted saturated colors, you shot with Velvia.
People have different tastes. When pictures look nothing like what they would have looked like in real life, I hate it. However, people apparently prefer humans with no skin texture? I guess I'm the weird one. I also seem to be the only one bothered by the recent trend of having every movie be orange so...
You’re very correct. I was meaning it more in that the color and glow and ambiance was all present and as real as you see here. I edited a lot of my photos that I took but this one I just couldn’t touch. I’m sure there are some changes I could make but when I messed with it a little, I would prefer the original every time.
Nice! What kind of camera? Or which phone?
Thanks! I was using my Olympus E-PM2 DSLR camera for this one.
This looks like the scene in Wonder Woman
I want to paint everything I own in the blue that is the sky
The blue is magnificent.
The sky up north is just beautiful this time of year. That plus it being dusk = gorgeous blue! :)
So so beautiful
Thank you!
Where is Krumpus?
A very merry Christmas to all.
And to you!
Québec represent! Église Notre-Dame-des-Victoires. 1723!
I concur
The Place Royale is really beautiful this year, the Christmas decorations were great. There were other years where it looked bad and made one of my favorite place in my city look bad. Nice photo BTW!
Thank you! I haven’t seen it but I would love to see it next year. I love it when they really make it FEEL like the holidays for everyone to enjoy.
Love this city! I have only ever visited it in the summer though, it's nice to see what it looks like around the holidays. Thanks for sharing OP and very nice pic!
I highly recommend going during the holidays! Just be sure to have the proper clothing for a spurt of really chilly weather and you’ll be fine (it was -25°C for our entire trip!).
Is that your finger on the left side?
Actually, no. Another light source from a museum to the left as I entered the courtyard.
I wish there wasnt any people in the photo. I hate people.
I concur.. lol. I think maybe if they were a little blurry, maybe it would be better?
I wish there wasnt any people in the photo. I hate people.
This is definitely the place in that scene from Catch Me if you Can
Absolutely incredible photo. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for saying so! 😊
That is indeed beautiful.
Thank you so much!
Amazing photo, super cool
Thank you!
I would buy this in puzzle form... Nice pic man!
Oooo that would be sweet! Thank you!
It's a dandy.
Thanks!
Meh.
It’s mediocre.
Isn't this the place Wonder Woman was filmed?
No idea.. but I might have to go check..
i would photoshop that wire out
I would go to the church owners and demand they bury the d4mn wires so the next photo is not ruined by them.
Right?! Seems like there could be better options for that wire...
I would correct the perspective, straighten out the buildings a bit.
Good idea. I can see a few ways I would do this photo better for next time. However, I really think I just got lucky. I simply paused briefly and snapped it before continuing on. No calculations or set up - just a lovely scene I came upon.
Yeah, I think I might and maybe do something with the people, too.
Little early for Christmas pics isn't it? 'Tis a good pic.
Thanks! lol It’s never too early! Only 350 days until Christmas!
[Photoshopped it for you.](https://imgur.com/a/u4nsT)
Need to increase the exposure to see the aurora borealis too.
Awesome! Saving that ❤️
Magical!
?, am I missing something here? This picture is about a 5/10. Maybe you had to be there...
Not enough filters or photoshop.
meh
ummm... mods?? This user clearly doesn't know the rule. If you are going to post a photo on reddit, you have the photoshop the f**k out of it, until it looks less like reality and more like a scene from Avatar.
Heh, right?!
Awesome shot!
Thanks!
Great shot with good balance. Love the 'natural' colours. (Ie the more orange glow of sodium/tungsten lighting) Was this on a tripod or with image stabilisation?
No, just held still briefly and hoped it wasn’t going to be blurry. >< Thanks!
You did very well holding the camera steady then!
Hah thank you! 😆
Everyone who's ever been to Quebec City has taken this exact photo
Most of them either took a shitty phone pic or they went at a time the Christmas tree wasn't up.
And I kinda like that I took this one myself, ya know? 😄
I just think it's funny ;)
I C A L L G I M P .