Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anne Frank House

Anne Frank House

Original - The famous Anne Frank House alongside the Prinsengracht in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Edit 1 - Perspective fully corrected, converted from AdobeRGB to sRGB

Reason: The EV is high and so is the quality. I nominated a picture of the Anne Frank House before. I've tried to resolve the problems of the old nomination with this picture. There are no exposure problems anymore, the perspective has been corrected and there are no leaves blocking the view. The composition has changed due to the fact, a change has been made to the layout of the other quay I took this shot from. I find this view of the house to be better, but you can be the judges of that. I've included the old nomination for comparison.
Articles this image appears in: Anne Frank, Anne Frank House and Amsterdam
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Old Nomination - Not for Voting

the Prinsengracht in Amsterdam,the Netherlands.]]

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is exactly the kind of subject where we need a historic picture. There are plenty of them. GerardM (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we need a historic picture? Nothing really has changed over the years. There aren't a lot of historic pictures of this structure available. Wikipedia hasn't got one at least. This building only became famous after the WW2 (>1960's), so not a lot of people would have photographed the building before this war. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The character of the building has changed significantly because of the restauration. The building was thought to be largely abandoned, this is why it worked for so long. The fact that Wikipedia does not have a historic picture (yet) does not mean that they do not exist. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason why they could hide there for so long without being caught, was because the building functioned solely as a office/warehouse. The "achterhuis" in which the family lived was totally shielded of from the outside world and almost nobody knew it existed. The fact that the building was run down had not a lot to do wth it. Most buildings in the historic center of Amsterdam were run down during that period due to neglect. Beside this point, Wikipedia isn't allowed to only have one FP on one subject. We could for example have a FP of how it looks now and how it looked back then. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would like to reiterate one of GerardM's comments. The fact that Wikipedia does not have a historic photo of the house does not mean that this photo should be promoted to FP status just because it's the best we have on Wikipedia. -- AJ24 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The comment of the historic picture just doesn't make any sense. A historic photograph will not contain a lot of crucial information over a modern version. The only difference is that you will see a not restored building. If this is the main argument, then we should not even bother promoting modern pictures of buildings, since most have been restored to their original state in the last decades. Until a decade ago, cars were allowed to park in front of the house, so a historic picture will not be better in the sense that, these cars will obscure the lower part of the buildings. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is perfectly fine. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--mbz1 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A historic photo would compliment this, but we'd probably want an image of how it looked now even if we had an earlier photo. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that a historical photo would be much better here. And if we really want a modern photo, how about one with better composition? The branches and shadows are quite distracting. Maybe valued pictures for this; it's just not an FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid we lack a lumberjack to remove the trees from the city centre. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows and branches are a significant distraction. Calling the neighborhood lumberjack is not the only option for correcting this problem: a better angle, perhaps? The photograph is nice, but certainly not FP quality due to distractions and poor composition. -- AJ24 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken a picture without the trees in front of the buildings is impossible, since they block the view from every angle. The shadows are minor and you can still see a lot of detail through them. Again, shooting an image without shadows cannot be done. For instance, the trees will always drop a shadow one them. This is also the best composition possible. I've dealt with all the reasons for which you can oppose this image (see earlier nomination). I've did a quick scan of images available on the internet and this one is frankly the best picture available of the Anne Frank House. If you oppose this image, that means that it just isn't possible to take a FP of this building. This means the composition just isn't compelling enough for you to support. A historic image by the way will be even worse. It not only has trees blocking the view, there will be cars parked in front of the building, which block the view of the lower halve of the buildings. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid your statement that it is impossible to take a photograph of the house without shadows is not true. Just browsing through Google Images easily disproves your assertion. Almost every photograph I've seen of the house taken from directly in front of the house are without shadows. Even with the problem of the shadows being ignored, the overall composition of the photograph is not visually appealing at all. -- AJ24 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While a taking a featurable picture might be difficult, I do think that there are too many shadows in this picture, and that this is an addressable concern. Shooting in diffuse light would eliminate or significantly lessen the sharp shadows. I'm not convinced by the composition either. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Considering the constraints of the site and the high ev, I think this image is a success. Maedin\^talk 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the perfectly fine comment. This is FP and the image should have something special about it. Photographically there's nothing eyecatching about it, something that may be remedied by a different time of day, slightly different angle. I don't like uncorrected perspective in any building shot. Mfield (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would have taken the time to read the reason above for nominating this image, you would have known that I have corrected the perspective. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you need to be snarky, I did you read your comments and I don't need a lesson on perspective correction thanks. You corrected the vertical, but not the horizontal - see Edit 1 which has also been converted from AdobeRGB to web standard sRGB so the colors will now appear correctly in most browsers. Mfield (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is an average photo and it can be retaken my many millions of people, subsequently there is very little special about this photo --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose If I were going to support an FPC on this building it would have been the earlier nomination, which had better composition. There ought to be a featured picture associated with Anne Frank, but perhaps that featured picture isn't possible as this building's facade. It's a sad thing to note that her diary will enter public domain in 2016: I would gladly support a text FP from a page of her handwriting when that becomes possible, and wish that public domain date were much farther away. She should have had a longer and better life. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this picture is in need of some horizontal perspective correction like Mattbew Field suggested (though not as much as in his example). That will improve the composition :). I also think that you just can't take a FP of this building. When the weather becomes better (still grey skies...), I'll try and make a panorama of the Merwedeplein. She used to live there before the family moved to the Prinsengracht. The store were she bought the diary is also located there. Yes, she should have had a longer and better life, and so should 6 millions others. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I definitely agree with Durova. I like the old "not for vote" one much better. The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]