I don't see any tilt. And since it's been stitched and perspective corrected, I don't see how it could be tilted (unless the author did a bad job, which isn't the case here :) ) Benh06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, lighting which does not accurately represent the subject would illustrate it better? This is a 100 ft tall building, not a table top object. The drab and solemn lighting is part of the memorial and it's widely mentioned in discussions of the building, to remove it would be to create a lie. I'm okay with the notion that we won't feature images of some subjects if they accurately represent reality, but please don't go so far as to claim that an image must be a fabrication to well illustrate its subject.--Gmaxwell06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered this technique you probably know so : I do suggest you make three shots with different exposure (bracketing ?) of this (I know it's a stitched pic, so this will be harder for you) and combine them to get a HDR picture. This way, the room will appear brighter, but the ceiling won't be overexposed. Also, Would taking this pic at another moment change something ? Benh08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one of those wonderfully detailed shots that is likely unique on the internet and of great encyclopedic value, but it is more suited to QI, because it lacks sufficient wow. I know people want FP because it's more "prestigious" than QI, but that's not what this is about. The lighting is somewhat problematic, but I'm not sure how you'd go around fixing it. -- Ram-Man05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree a little. Some kind of picture aren't "WOW" by nature, but I think this should not detract us from promoting them. That is why I voted for this nomination of yours : it's the best we have of the subject for now and as far as I know, and it's good enough. FP should cover the largest range. But here I guess the lighting killed it for many. -- Benh08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We both have different standards, but I did support this building panorama because I believe it had fewer weaknesses than others in its category, despite not being the most exciting for me. My image is a natural texture, which is different in my mind from man-made subject matter. This is why I vote differently. For what it's worth, I might support this one with better lighting. -- Ram-Man14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think there might be a tiny bit of distortion in the windows at the top: The flower-pattern is stretched into elipses. Adam Cuerden00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something is wrong. The light and the reflections are lacking although the subject is monomental. This version looks unnatural. Something is wrong about the lighting. Metoc09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]