Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk

Main Terminal of Washington Dulles International Airport

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 13:39:12 (UTC)

Original – Main Terminal of Washington Dulles International Airport at dusk in Virginia, USA. The building was designed in 1958 by Finnish architect Eero Saarinen.

Reason: High quality photo of a notable building. Already featured at Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Washington Dulles International Airport, Eero Saarinen and six more
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Joe Ravi

Support as nominator --O.J. (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version. The tilt in the tower is bit like an optical illusion. I have verified with original shot which includes a concrete pillar providing a good source of reference for tilt. --Jovian Eye _storm 05:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sceptical of the edit, because it appears to be a local warping, rather than a real lens correction. JJ Harrison (talk)
- Your vote seems a bit confused JJ. You're skeptical of the edit but support it, and forgot to sign. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed it, thanks, you semantics nazi :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support either~~. Not really seeing any significant tilt, the difference between the original and edit is quite minute. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support original. After comparing the two again, I can't see any real benefit from the edit. There are no obvious vertical lines on the tower to use as a plumb and the edit is ever so slightly less sharp as a result of the warping. Nit-picking and creating unnecessary duplicates just confuses things. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport edit 1. Been in and out of this place many times, and it's an excellent representation. Finally, an FP that I have some personal connection to! Clegs (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which version do you support or is it either? --Jovian Eye _storm 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit 1 is good, the tower is a little better in it. Clegs (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 I remember my jaw dropping when I first approached Dulles --Guerillero | My Talk 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Edit looks distorted, I prefer the original. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1, the shadow in the air above the terminal is a little less distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow in the air? I dont understand. --Jovian Eye _storm 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Daniel is referring to the darker-blue-noise visible between the building and the sky. Nik thestoned 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between the original and edit in that area of the image... I'm still as confused as before. :) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand how lens distortion only could affect the tower. IMO edit 1 looks distorted and due to the corrections made, the tower looks softer than in the original. O.J. (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit1 is not a lens correction edit. As JJ Harrison mentioned, it is local warping that has been applied. --Jovian Eye _storm 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because after initial investigation, it seemed that there was no consistent lens distortion, but rather, a single bulge on the lens that caused distortion in that part of the image. On the basis of that information, it was correct to assume that, given that I couldn't put the lens in a 3D scanner to learn more about its exact shape, a minimally invasive edit would be the best option, in this case a very minor warping (or "swirl", as it somewhat childishly gets called in the program). However, I have since looked at a number of other photographs of this particular scene and conclude that the workmanship on the buildings and signs is just shoddy - hardly any of the verticals agree. So think what you will, I personally wouldn't trust anything taken of this scene without a horizon indicator (camera feature) after what I've seen. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Occam's razor might be appropriate here. Perhaps there really is a single 'bulge' in the lens' optics right where the tower is, but more than likely, any perceived tilt of the tower with respect to the scene is your mind playing tricks on you. In any case, in the absence of horizontal/vertical cues and no obvious tilt, it doesn't seem like there is any justification for making guesstimations. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I wrote that my final conclusion was that the verticals in reality don't match up, i.e. stuff is actually leaning in reality. But feel free to read selectively as seems to be a habit of yours. Also, feel free to actually verify any perceived or supposed verticals with a graphics application, and check out alternate images of this same scene, before going on an unsubstantiated rant about how eyes are playing tricks. Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You did conclude that, but your original thinking was flawed and that was what I was talking about. You went in gung-ho trying to fix it without any explanation of what the problem was or how you believed the edit resolved it. Also, I don't feel I need to 'verify any perceived or supposed verticals with a graphics application' because as I already said, I don't believe there are any valid vertical lines in the image to use. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still ranting. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, right. Of course, it's a lot easier to dismiss my point with accusations of rants than to actually acknowledge and respond to it. Par for this course. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, there is some noise visible in the sky but I'd say this is about right for a night shot. Nik thestoned 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either I don't think it matters too much. Dusty777 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for original (4-3, etc.). Makeemlighter (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]