Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Victorian Arts Centre Spire, Melbourne

Victorian Arts Centre Spire, Melbourne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 09:39:17 (UTC)

Reason: High res, high quality, detailed and sharp. Amazing what turns up on your hard drive at times, I'd forgotten I'd even taken this. Am also surprised (given the number of 'Melburnian' photographers through here) that we didn't already have a decent shot of this building, or in fact an FP of it. (Just to pre-empt, in case anyone mentions it: the trees very slightly in the way at left are pretty much unavoidable, unless the Council gets their act together and cuts them back - this was the clearest view available. Otherwise, to avoid them completely, you'd have to get closer at ground level, and then be shooting up, and therefore losing a lot of detail and get perspective problems. As it is, taken at this time of year, the trees don't really impact the view of the building. And FWIW this shot is no longer possible, as the building it was taken from is currently undergoing major renovations.)
Articles in which this image appears: The Arts Centre (Melbourne)
Culture of Australia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ However the buildings and flagpoles at bottom right have got a little bit too much lean on for my liking - however they are such a small part of the picture it won't affect my vote... Otherwise excellent picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're totally right - the pano creation caused more distortion than I noticed. Edit1 uploaded; I believe it fixes this issue. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nicely done... Support Edit1 gazhiley.co.uk 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (both) ~~stitching error(s),~~ noisy, poor light (the white parts are heavily blown out, an image without sunshine would be better) --kaʁstn 09:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please advise where the stiching errors are? gazhiley.co.uk 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found one, but it could be that are some more. I annotated it on Commons. --kaʁstn 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for identifying the minor stitching error. I had missed that one. Have uploaded a new version of Edit1 that corrects that. As for your other points, well, they're your opinion, though I feel "an image without sunshine" would be rather drab and tend to lack details. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why should "an image without sunshine" tend to lack details? Currently there are hardly details on the tower beacuse it's blown out. And maybe then it's drab. But it's better to have a well exposed image with overall details as a picture which has just at some parts much details and is blown out. Regards --ka ʁs tn 17:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What details are you expecting on something that's completely white? This is not off-white to reduce reflections, as are the tiles on the Sydney Opera House for example. And if you can't see the necessary details on the tower other than the parts are just white anyway, well frankly you may want your eyes checked. --jjron (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. A well-executed photo, nicely lit, with a laid-back human scene at the bottom to give it some scale. However, the trees at the left, and the sculptures at the right, do interfere a bit. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<5 support. Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]