Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower2

Willis Tower2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 04:36:22 (UTC)

Original - Willis Tower, shot from the Chicago River.

Edit1 Hugin corrections by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Edit2 Hugin corrections and change aspect ratio by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reason: This is one of the most photographed buildings in the world from a great angle. It has high EV on WP.
Articles in which this image appears: Chicago
Willis Tower
List of architects of supertall buildings
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good angles, shine and shadow. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit1 I see the reason for the adjustment, but it completely distorted the photo to the point where it no longer looks like the Sears/Willis Tower. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could change the aspect ratio to make the building more slender.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit1. --Dschwen 17:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, really not seeing the edit, and I oppose further manipulation to bring it back. If anything, cut the losses and consider the original. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not have nominated the original. I will rescale the edit and if it fails it fails.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, strongly oppose edits. The original is incredibly crisp and features a dramatic and interesting angle; I like how it includes the large arched lobby as well as the river. Most pictures I ever see of the tower are from a distance and straight on the side; I don't mind at all seeing some perspective distortion here. That's the nature of the 110-story beast. The edits not only distort the tower, but distort and cut off 311 S Wacker even more severely, to the point of damaging the rest of the picture. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think 311 South Wacker is important subject matter for this composition and any of its uses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 311 S Wacker isn't the subject, but its composition is still relevant to the photo. In the original, it's a prominent feature of the photograph, mildly clipped, and doesn't detract from Sears at all. In the edits, it's clipped so severely that it detracts from the overall photograph. (along with the severe perspective correction) --Golbez (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems that there is only one current FP that suffers from perspective distortion. Since the ratio is over 100:1 in favor of eliminating perspective distortion, I thought I would give it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, while the edits may 'fix' the perspective distortion of the central building, they make the buildings beside it lean out to the sides, so aren't really beneficial - you'd have to get it all straight for it to work. --jjron (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I have been having some problems with hugin. This is the best I can do in the face of my difficulties. Make your decisions based on what you see unless someone wants to attempt to improve upon my work. I am not so satisfied with the bowing of 311 South Wacker, but not upset about the rest of the result.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original, strong oppose edits. You say this is one of the most photographed buildings in the world, so I reckon there will be better shots out there, as this isn't mindblowing. However, I like it more than I thought I would; the composition's good, the angle's interesting and it's technically sound. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all. I'm afraid I think this less worthy every time I see it. I consider the arguments below fairly convincing. J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Sorry, while I don't mind this type of photo for 'artistic' shots of buildings, I don't think they're so good for 'encyclopaedic' uses, so tend to go against them here. FWIW I may be less likely to oppose if the building on the right wasn't quarter chopped off. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Well, I guess I'll support the original. This was more than a snapshot (too significant time in postprocessing to get rid of chromatic aberrations), the angle was not chosen for artistic purposes (that is pretty much never what I shoot for, my one and only motivation is making encyclopedic documentary pictures for wikipedia). There are not many locations around the Tower that allow for an unobstructed shot and still give a sense of the surroundings. I do not think the cut off buildings matter here, they are not the main subject. --Dschwen 12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All Willis Tower is 1451 feet tall and the building to the right, I think is 311 South Wacker, which is 961 feet tall. The image's prospective makes it appear as if they're equal heights, but they're clearly not. File:Sears_Tower_and_311_South_Wacker.jpg that image you can clearly see the difference in the height, same File:Sears Tower ss.jpg there. I think this vantage of the building is less EV because of that. Likewise this image isn't the infobox image, so it's clearly not the best image we have for Willis Tower, File:Sears Tower ss.jpg is, and I agree that that image should be in the infobox over this one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can not obtain that height difference without being a long distance away or at an angle where parts of the building are obscured or in the case of both images that you point out both of these are true.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are pro and contra arguments for either perspective. If they don't like this image it is their business. The image raeky mentions would be nice if it weren't such a tiny stamp. --Dschwen 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they can say they like any perspective. They can say that all of a sudden perspective corrections are not warranted for architecture as soon as I begin to learn hugin. They can say the sky is purple or whatever.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where do you get Hugin, by the way? And does it come with Munin? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Google hugin. If you are using windows, you will be a bit behind on the version, however. Don't know about munin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing :D Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]