Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg

File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 17:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Colin - nominated by Benh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly caught my attention. In my opinion, a very nice example of where the distortions actually add a touch to the picture. And that "S" unconsciously calls for a "S"upport ! - Benh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Catchy colors and view, however the moving people are blown. -- Pofka (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"S" for Support They were so proud of the escalator mechanisms in the Lloyd's building that they painted them bright yellow, installed fluorescent tubes to light them up, and enclosed them in glass panels. The escalators dominate any view of the lower-interior of this huge building and I wanted to fill your vision with them too. I think the image is dynamic in composition and in captured movement. -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Technically not particularly strong, but compositionally interesting, and a view of an iconic building that we rarely see. Diliff (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ sorry, but I only see a fisheye distorted and blurred image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to change your mind, but is this, like B&W, another case of 'fisheye = automatic oppose'? Fisheye is a legitimate projection of 3D space onto a 2D surface. It's not to everyone's tastes, but your oppose reason sounds like it's a fault. Diliff (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember to a lot of other images with a small distortion and a lot of opposes ... and here? Here is only a distortion visible. For me: strong distortion = a oppose possible. I also wrote: "blurred". The most of the people and the escalator are blurred. My conclusion: distorted + blurred parts = "oppose" for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all distortion is equal. Sometimes fisheye 'distortion' is a deliberate artistic/compositional choice, sometimes distortion is detrimental to the photo and adds nothing. In this case, the composition would have been absolutely impossible with a fisheye or similarly distorted projection. Also, you may have noticed that I said I wasn't trying to change your mind, I was just trying to understand your reasoning. And yes, the people and escalator are blurred. I would argue that it's not vital in this image that they are sharp. They are transient in the scene. Diliff (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think that distortion should yield an oppose. It really sounds like the argument of someone who think of photography as a technology show case. It doesn't have to be tack sharp, big, noisefree and straight. Diliff almost summed it all, but I'd add the blurred people is fine because it's motion blur which is way to evoke movement, and certainly not a fault. - Benh (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think we are here on Wikipedia:Commans, not in a fine art fotocommunity blog ... but "to err is human", sorry for my honestly opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thought Commons was mostly about photography and that photography itself was an art but yes, Errare humanum est. - Benh (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I was wrong. I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Benh and Diliff, naturally. Our scope of "educational media content" is far far wider than merely photographs that are just literal photocopies of the visible world. Capturing a precise and accurate "specimen record" of a subject is of course a valuable part of educational image making, but only a part. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great idea - minor technical shortcomings do not devalue its execution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and interesting subject offset blurred people and blown window at top. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool and interesting photo. --///EuroCarGT 03:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the fisheye. I dislike all of the clipping due to the high gain. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors