But if anyone has the opportunity of taking a photograph of this site in the cross axis, and with a wider angle, it would be great! --Eusebius (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : there's already a VI of this site with a similar orientation. Although this one is better imo, it seems that a MVR is needed.--JLPC (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
There is an existing VI of this scope of the same view, which I took 7 years ago with a compact camera. This nomination from April 2015 is much more recent, and is a tone-mapped HDR stitch build from raws taken with a DSLR using Lightroom and PTGui. This has resulted in a much higher reolution image with better dynamic range, and quality. -- Slaunger (talk)
Reason:
This is the existing VI of this scope taken by me 7 years ago with a compact camera. Now superseeded by this photo of much better quality from April 2015. -- Slaunger (talk)
Reason:
Not from a book, a real picture, taken by me in the museum. All the face is visible, even the feet. Quality is far much better than our current VI, IMO. Geocode is in the "institution template". -- Jebulon (talk)
The museum is completely renovated, and the light is very different nowadays than before. I masked the explicit (but busy) background, but as far as I can say and as I remember, yes, the wb is good, now (it was far much colder before processing). Previous pictures are wrong (too hot) before, with yellow cast. But I could correct if necessary.--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know best what you saw. I just noticed the shadow under it has a blue tint, which is often an indication of a too cold WB, which triggered my remark. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]