Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gothenburg Opera

Gothenburg Opera

Reason: Reason for nominating the picture? Trying to get it featured of course! :) – Image has encyclopedic value, it depicts the architecture of the building quite well in my opinion.
Articles this image appears in: Gothenburg Opera
Creator: Krm500 (talk)

Support as nominator Krm500 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me (and sometimes my eyes do play tricks on me) it seems like the building is leaning to the left slightly. It's hard to say for sure though, because there are so many angles on the building. Clegs (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's distortion. If you run a ruler along the verticals, you'll find them to be all different angles. MER-C 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose original Distortion should not be present in anything striving to be an encyclopedic depiction of architecture. Especially as its so easy to correct - see my Edit 1 Mfield (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Both are rather distorted per a more rectilinear view like this. Although the nightshot is good, from what I can see online the building's colouring is important and perhaps should be shown more prominently. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't think the distortion would be an issue since other FP images on wikipedia also has it, I was more worried about the building being cut off on the left side. Thanks for your edit Mfield, but it's almost impossible to get a good result afterwards, the best thing would be a tilt and shift lens from the start. I could probably do something about the colour, but IMO it isn't more colourful in real life, the broad daylight probably affects the other image you presented. --Krm500 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new version, with adjusted colours. --Krm500 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice job on the distortion fix. If you could somehow get the Macbeth sign fully in the photo (in edit 1), while keeping the great color of the original version, I'd support it in a heartbeat.—DMCer™ 12:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, the colors appear different between Original and Edit 1 to you DCMer? They look identical to me on multiple browsers. I didn't edit the colors at all, just corrected distortion and did some local contrast enhancement so they should appear the same. Unless there is some kind of profile mismatch. Re: the Macbeth sign, its a maximum crop after the distortion is corrected, unless the original file has more image to the left there's just too much distortion to remove without some of that sign having to go. Mfield (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually was referring to an attempt to correct the sign cutoff, while not enhancing the colors as they are in edit 2, I like the colors better in the first two. Shame about the distortion fix/cropped sign tradeoff. I still love the picture though.—DMCer ™ 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support Edit2, great HDR, nice prospect of this building Wladyslaw Sojka (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]