Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 23:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg/2
337
3557
100
100
5616
3744
On the other side of this scaffolding is the upper screen of the tower
2783
2059
100
100
5616
3744
The ball itself in its staging area: this area is hidden by the large screen that the illuminated year digits are also placed atop.
Support -- I tried nominating this image once before (after being suggested to by the graphics lab so we could find out what needed to be tweaked.) Since then, it has been de-noised, and the white balance has been tweaked. I still stand by my previous argument: this is a very rare shot we got here, and the fact that its also been freely licensed is also quite a rare feat too (since getting the necessary privilege to go up here might be a bit tricky if you're not a member of the press). ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a full frame camera. A tripod would probably not fit, even if it could, this is an ultrawide fisheye, and for a camera facing down it's inevitable that some part of the photographer and/or his gear would be visible. Would you rather be looking down at human legs or tripod legs? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea and the composition but the quality is just below the FP (and QI) threshold. I would have chosen an earlier time with more natural light, increased a bit the shutter time and reduced the f-number. There was play room to do so, and so reduce the ISO to 800, where the 5D Mark II provides a much better quality Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally do not like this fisheye look. Due to fisheye the spoiling feet of the photographer are inside the photo. The quality (noise, level of detail) is not really good, and could have been better with other camera parameters than (1/125 sec / ISO 1250 @ 15mm) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rotated it 180 degrees for a better vertigo effect. Should we see if the graphics lab can remove the feet? I had brought up both of these modifications there before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is. This is a rare opportunity while he is assisting in setting up a robotic camera just above the 3 in "2013". So I can't understand suggestions like choosing a different time or equipment. JKadavoorJee07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Anthony Quintano on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by ViperSnake151 - tweaks by Hic et nunc ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Support -- I tried nominating this image once before (after being suggested to by the graphics lab so we could find out what needed to be tweaked.) Since then, it has been de-noised, and the white balance has been tweaked. I still stand by my previous argument: this is a very rare shot we got here, and the fact that its also been freely licensed is also quite a rare feat too (since getting the necessary privilege to go up here might be a bit tricky if you're not a member of the press). ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Very poor quality. Nothing to warrant mitigation. B.p. 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
