Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Griffith observatory.jpg

Griffith Observatory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 19:19:46 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, great shot
Articles in which this image appears: Griffith Observatory, Griffith Park, John C. Austin, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, List of museums in Los Angeles, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Mfield

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Caption should probably be more succinct, per WIAFP:7a (see also CAP#Succinctness). —Eustress ^talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've shortened it. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Support~~ Caption issued resolved, excellent photo —Eustress ^talk 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oppose Didn't realize it until reading JJ's comment below... he's right, the camera is focused on the houses in the background and not on the observatory. Still an impressive picture, but FP criterion 1 says the main subject must be in focus. —Eustress ^talk 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ That is stunning! At full zoom, it's a bit soft, but still passable. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah ok, the focus plane is out. I kind of noticed this the first time, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. Reluctant oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment tree to the right of the door (as it appear in the pic) appears strangly blured. Stitching error?©Geni 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Aaadddaaammm about softness. Pine^talk 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory. The image quality is very average compared to most of our landscape shots. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wasn't particularly drawn to this when it was nominated but I didn't want to be the first to oppose. I guess the the reason the Observatory isn't sharp is because of what JJ said? It's a shame it's off-center too. The Astronomers Monument should have been dead center in the middle of the door. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the monument was centered in front of the door, we might not be able to see the door as well as we do here. I like the angle. Pine^talk 08:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment from the photographer Interestingly I just happened upon FP today for the first time in ages and saw this so I thought I'd address a couple of points that have been raised incorrectly. I would say I never figured this would be an FP or I would probably have nominated it back when I was a regular here, I uploaded it for its enc value. JJ says ' I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory." Well, per the image caption, this is not cropped from a larger image at all, quite the contrary, it is a stitch of four quarters in landscape format. Secondly, the camera did not focus on the houses behind, it focused on the observatory, however as this was shot with a 20D and a then new 300 F4L, this predated Live View, and hence critical manual focus, and the lens/body combination back focused as I discovered shortly after. The 20D was retired soon after and I never worried about it again. Like I said anyway, I uploaded it for its enc rather than its photographic merit, but it has amazingly stood the test of time in the article and numerous templates and infobox mosaics. Mfield (Oi!) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]