Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian Parliament House

Australian Parliament House

Original - The front architecture of Australia's Parliament House, Canberra, built into Capital Hill. Image includes the forecourt and main entrance, and illustrates a ground level view of the boomerang shaped design of the building

Edit1 - Adjusted levels per some comments suggesting original had slight underexposure; I don't mind either, probably slight preference to original

Reason: NS's recent nom down the page reminded me to upload my own Parliament House pano. Now he has withdrawn his I may as well put mine up here. Reasons as per his nom, but additionally this shows the full extent of the front of the building, and though his is eye-catching, I personally feel the day time lighting here is more realistic and conveys greater EV.
Articles this image appears in: Parliament House, Canberra
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I weakly supported the other nomination, but this fixes all the issues I had with the previous image. More normal sky, full width of the building, great. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent panorama. Good detail, could possibly do with a slight brightening IMO, but otherwise very good. As Noodle Snacks has mentioned to me before, what would really be nice is to take this photo from a cherry picker ;-). A bit of elevation would help to show the shape of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noodle snacks seems to have a thing for cherry pickers... ;) wadester 16 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure that security would take too well to you pulling up here in a cherry picker - could make a good Chaser skit though. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been toying with the idea of strapping my 5D to an RC helicopter, but I suspect that an F/A-18 would shoot it down in minutes if I used it to get an elevated shot there. :-) The problem (apart from the cost) is that it seems very difficult to actually find anywhere legal to actually fly the thing, especially for the sort of photos in built up areas that I tend to take. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well the Chasers did get away with flying an RC blimp over the Vatican, so you never know, as long as you don't mind the odd arrest here and there :-). Having said which, it would make it damn hard to get the photos right for those panos. --jjron (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Just reminded me of Charles Firth bagging out "Capitol Hill". Noodle snacks (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I wonder if you mean "Capitol Hill", rather than "Capital Hill"? wadester 16 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of wondering, you could visit the article and see for yourself! Although the word 'capitol' refers to a building that contains the legislature, in practice it's mainly used in the US with a few international exceptions. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Dave and thank you for that rambunctious response. I only asked because indeed in America we call it Capitol Hill, because it is, well, the hill of the building, not the hill of the city. But if it comes down to a difference in American and British English, so be it. wadester 16 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice, although I agree with Diliff about the slight underexposure. --Dschwen 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Good to see something from you after such a long break --Muhammad(talk)
Support - well done. Cacophony (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Did you see Kevin's ute there? MER-C 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't know at the time in order to check, though I think that shadowy figure entering at left may be Godwin Grech ;-). --jjron (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a bit underexposed (~1/2 a stop). Also has a bit of a tilt if you use the edges of the entrance as a reference. This image does have more EV and I would support a fixed version, but I don't think it is as compelling from a compositional or lighting point of view. I do take issue with the "more realistic" comment. One time of day is not more realistic than another. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was referring to the sky in yours, which has a bit of an other worldly look possibly due the exposure blending, and which seemed to be the main reason you withdrew - perhaps it's natural, but it looks a bit unrealistic. --jjron (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is some cyan banding going on on the RHS, which was the reason. Still natural. File:Parliament House Canberra NS.jpg is a non-blended shot slightly earlier. Obviously it only looks like those shots for a few minutes a day though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, no offence meant. A few others had commented on the sky too. --jjron (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely magnificent. One of the best FPCs I've ever seen. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly passed anyway but what a good photo --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pile on. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Original is a bit dark. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit1 Per Noodle snacks. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit1 To make the decision easier --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment: Not sure which version to promote. Can everyone clarify? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 09:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Edit caption I don't mind either, but perhaps a slight pref to the original. For the record, I added the edit before Alchemist's vote, so all after that had the choice (sorry, I forgot to add a comment at the time). --jjron (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't care here. ALT1 is a tad brighter, but the difference is so slight as to be nearly meaningless. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the edit. wadester 16 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the edit 1 version. It seemed like the support for it was pretty clear based on a number of people saying they thought the original was underexposed, and a number of people specifically stating they supported edit 1 specifically, with only the nominator prefering the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parliament House, Canberra, Pano jjron 25.9.2008-edit1.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]