Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
NorbertNagel, we often have several featured pictures of the same subject, sometimes even the same angle of view. This view and the other are different enough that many would not even suspect they were the same building. So please strike your invalid reason for oppose. -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, that we have different opinions on this topic and that it may have happened earlier that several pictures of the same subject have been featured, but this does not mean that my position is invalid. I ask you to respect my opinion as I respect yours. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting this is how FP should operate, which is a question beyond this individual picture. The idea behind FP is to select the best pictures on Commons, not the one best picture. I can respect differing views on one picture but if you want a different FP from the rest, then you need to get consensus for that change. I can also respect your view of how FP should work, but fundamental shifts such as this may be considered disruptive change is suggested by voting at the image-level. You've chosen a rather bad example to make your point. We do often oppose or go neutral on images that are too similar to others (especially recent) but never because it is the same building, even from the other side. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Norbert, so if there is already one FP of an entire category, by your logic there should not be a FP of any other photo in that category? In this case, the category is for an office complex, and in that complex there are many notable buildings, each deserving of a FP IMO. As the two images are both clearly a different subject and a different object, the category they are in is mostly irrelevant. All it does is suggest that perhaps we could create more specific categories for each subject. That is not the fault of the image(s). Diliff (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I like it. Enough wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I like it as it is. --Cayambe (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   weak oppose: First: I've seldom seen such brilliant combination of HDR and stitching technique - probably the highest quality shots of that type we have on Commons - you master the processing of those images in a nearly perfect way. The same with the image here: The quality is far beyond QI average - I've only discoverd a small artefacts from stitching / fusing (see note). The reason why I oppose anyway is mainly due to compositional aspects: the different widths of the framing building at the left and right, diagonal elements on the floor starting amid the image and not going through the complete picture, the building at the right background distracts the symmetry, an unclean border of the right framing building and finally the different types of surfaces at the left and right which also distract the symmetry. All in all: This centered shot can for me only work with perfect symmetry which is distracted by several elements. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that it could possibly be improved by centring the image so that the widths of the two surrounding buildings are equal. I left it slightly off-centre because I thought the tree would seem cropped otherwise but I concede it might be better. I'm happy to upload a centred image over the top of this one. I assume this is not enough to convince you to support however. I did take a similar panorama of this building another evening but I wasn't as pleased with the lighting as it was too dark. It may solve some your compositional issues. The view is from much closer so the building is more distorted, but the distracting foreground elements are minimised. What are your thoughts? Not as a potential FP candidate, but in terms of the composition. Diliff (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer the closer view. I am personally a great fan of close shots of buildings because the lines and architecture are accentuated well there. See for example this shot I've photographed with a T&S optic. To your closer image: It is much better that the pyramid-shaped building at the right is hidden. But there are still distracting elements at the left and right. I would crop them out - see my proposal. But cropping is always a matter of personal taste. But you are right, light is better on the nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will see if I can revisit (for a third time!) and improve on both images with good composition and good lighting. As you say, cropping is a matter of personal taste. I try to 'let them breathe' (as Richard Bartz mentioned on another nomination) but sometimes it's just not possible. In this case, the building is cropped either by the framing or by the buildings - you can take your pick about which. ;-) Diliff (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Poco2 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Jebulon (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very sharp for me. ArionEstar (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very nice light. --Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Arcalino (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:7_More_London_Riverside_at_dusk,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=113473871"