Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Australian Senate - Parliament of Australia.jpg

Australian Senate Chamber

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 07:19:33 (UTC)

Reason: Largely per the Australian House of Representatives image below. I jumped into the "no public access" section again and used similar shooting techniques. I used a different angle because the Senate Chamber is smaller, with fewer rows of seats. Again, it is the only "complete" shot of this chamber with all seating, and certainly the highest quality image on commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Australian Senate, Parliament of Australia, Parliament House, Canberra
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality and solid EV. A version with all the senators there would have been much better, but if you'd tried to take that from the public galleries you would have been kicked out. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no photography is allowed whilst the Senate is in session. I did collect the appropriate contact details to get special permission, but it was a moot point - parliament was not sitting at any time during my visit. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Darn, I wanted to see these buildings too... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good, and not that easy to get. Actually prefer this angle to the Reps one. Unfortunately they don't allow photography while parliament is sitting as JJ says (I've asked before). How did you get into the 'no access' area? They normally police that pretty tightly even when the chamber's empty (I'm just trying to place whether this is from floor level or the bottom of the gallery). Also looks to be a tiny stitching error where the carpet joins the wood almost at front centre. --jjron (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the bottom of the gallery. I actually did walk around to the right hand side gallery thing, but the door was locked. I just moved the rope cordons out of the way when no one was looking, and then generally attempted to look like I was doing a job. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thought that was probably the case; the galleries do go pretty low. Can you see that possible stitching issue? --jjron (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I can actually. I'll clone it out tomorrow. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cool. It's very insignificant, but may as well make it perfect. --jjron (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't have a higher vantage point given a better overview? --ELEKHH^T 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a few, Couldn't do it without chomping chairs off or having that bench in the foreground. The bench would probably cause stitching errors, and I used it to allow for long exposures (2.5 seconds) at low ISOs. They don't let tripods etc in. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of something like this, but I understand they restrict non-official photos. My concern is that due to the use of wide-angle and eye level perspective, the chamber looks more elongated than it is. In fact the plan is a square, and the space also has a considerable height, so the volume is closer to a cube which IMO is part of its distinct atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is a very good quality image. --ELEKHH^T 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice perspective. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Neutral~~ Oppose -- I'm not really liking what appears to be rather drastic perspective. Lessens EV and steps slightly into "artistic" in my opinion. Beautiful image though. And the colors are awesome. – JBarta (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the image mentioned above I can see that not only is the perspective issue noticeable, but the result significantly misrepresents the room. Therefore I'm changing my "comment" to an "oppose". – JBarta (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is a better perspective, but I think it is a screenshot from a television camera in the roof. I hardly think the AFP would allow a ladder in to the room either, especially if politicians were sitting. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While your image is prettier and more striking, I think this image is a whole lot more encyclopedic. Regardless of your difficulty in getting the shot, the shot you did get rather severely misrepresents the room. And for me that fails it as one of Wikipedia's best. – JBarta (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great quality and EV. O.J. (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ditto. Clegs (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has good EV. Cool picture. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose due to washed out whites in the upper sides of the image. Pine^talk 10:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The link from Elekh has better colours and better perspective. --99of9 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Australian Senate - Parliament of Australia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]