Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/sydney opera house

Sydney Opera House

The Sydney Opera House is one of the most distinctive and famous buildings worldwide. It is an extremely aesthetically pleasing architectural masterpiece, and is a hugely popular tourist attraction. This photo captures the majestic beauty of the building, displaying its brilliant 'sails' perfectly.

Nominate and support. - Michaeln36 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great subject composition, excellent as an encyclopaedic photograph - doniv 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per doniv --대조 | Talk 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Iconic and well composed. However, there is quite a bit of grain in the sky and it's somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Soft focus(or ccd), noisy sky. Well exposed, good subject. HighInBC 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both. Exactly per Pharaoh Hound. But I also think that for such a famous building, there are better pictures out there, without the grain and blur. --Tewy 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit on such a famous structure still isn't good enough for a FP, in my opinion. --Tewy 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some grain and blur. For such a famous subject better pictures will come along; there's no reason to compromise. Redquark 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the composition of this former Opera House FP much better. howch e ng {chat} 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is a great subject but I feel that the picture just doesn't do justice to the building. --Midnight Rider 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Redquark.--ragesoss 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding photo. Very close to perfection. If someone were to sharpen it with a light touch, it just might become the perfect photo of the subject. Fg2 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does, I will give improving it a go. While the composition of the former FP is great, this has some additional encycloepdic value, there's no reason we can't have two of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just sharpening the original image simply brought out the noise around the edges of the sails. However, my typical panacaea of a 50% downsample (leaving it smaller, but still over the 1000px mark), despeckling the sky, sharpening (60%), and adjusting the levels has brought out a sharper, though smaller image. I've uploaded it as Edit 1; though I don't doubt that someone else could do better. TSP 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with downsampling because it's probably best to leave as much detail in a picture as possible. The automatic resizing on the image page should suffice if people want to see a smaller version. enochlau (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I knew this picture looked familiar. This was a former failed FPC. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SydneyOperaHouse. howch e ng {chat} 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I wished people would tell me when my pictures get nominated :P I only happened to wander onto here because I'm rather bored at the moment. Umm, support (of course), but in all fairness, I think we've had this discussion before. However, the people who are opposing on technical reasons might want to see what the Photoshop whizzes around here can do first. enochlau (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But of course the "Photoshop whizzes" haven't given us another edit to vote on, so the opposes remain. --Tewy 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's edit 1 above... enochlau (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant "another edit" to be one besides edit 1 (an even better one), because I weak oppose edit 1 along with the original (See above reasons). I'll add a little note that to my vote. --Tewy 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Edit 2 or any. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 2 Per above votes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) .

Not promoted. This one is a close call, but many of the supports were weak supports, so I gave them a little less weight. +4 support/+4 weak support/-3 oppose/-1 weak oppose. howch e ng {chat} 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]