Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Parliament House Canberra Dusk Panorama.jpg

Parliament House Canberra

Reason: Detailed image for an important Australian landmark.
Articles this image appears in: Canberra, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great picture which meets the criteria. Before someone raises it, it would be difficult to get all of Parliament House in a single close-ish frame given it's size and the layout of roads, security barricades, etc, around the building. File:Parliament House, Canberra.jpg shows the kind of visual obstructions which would block a photo which includes the edges of the grassed slopes and why this is a good angle. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I have a pretty high res version from 'front on' that shows the entire building, slopes and all. Have just never got around to uploading it. --jjron (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good EV and a quality composition, but I don't like the colouring in the sky on the right side. It looks pretty strange, a little too cyan in parts and it has two waves of discolouration through it. Also, the edges of the frame are a bit soft. The problems aren't too serious, but there is something to be said for exposure blending and stitching and I think this image would have been a lot better if you'd used it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Used both (its a stitch and bracketed)... On the edge softness, I suspect that is because I used a rectilinear projection (it is about 100 degrees wide so edge frames were stretched a lot). Could just crop tighter. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh right, it just wasn't spelled out on the image page so I assumed (also based on the visual detail) that it was a single image. It might be worth using a different projection as rectilinear just breaks down if you go too wide, and I don't think that it would warp the perspective too much given that most of the straight lines are near the horizon. Given that you did use exposure blending, I think something went wrong in the sky as per the streaks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is a gorgeous image, but I think the photo at the angle Nick-D links is more encyclopedic, even given the problems, since this, by necessity, fails to show some of the major architectural elements that makes the building and its setting unique. That said, there's room for both. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My aim for File:Parliament House, Canberra.jpg was to improve on the original image and a shot of the whole front but never for it to be a FP standard on Wikipedia or Commons (It's currently not one and likely not to be one), If anyone wants to make improvements I'll be happy to send/upload (I'll have to find them but shouldn't be too hard) the original images (I think it took 5 or 6 images to stitch this IIRC) under a CC-BY-SA-3.0. I feel this FPC is the best photograph to be a FP (I'll post my vote during the week sometime). Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as per Shoemaker's Holiday. The picure Nick D mentioned shows a significant portion of the building that gets cut off in this photo, plus the nighttime setting makes it somewhat otherworldly looking. A great photo, and I'm not sure how you'd do better (save maybe an aerial photo?), with significant EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on colouration problems in the sky. If these can be fixed, I might support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You say detailed, but not many pixels are spent on the actual subject. --Dschwen 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I see the issue Diliff is referring to, but I don't have time to restitch in the immediate future. --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]