Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 08:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:City from One Bishops Square
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info An unusual view of the City of London, taken from the north-east rather than from the south bank of the Thames. The camera location is the roof terrace on an office that was open to the public only on Open House London 2015. The tall building nearby is apparently student accommodation but the other buildings are more concerned with finance. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If the 150MP image is too big for your browser, you can use the "interactive large image viewer" that is linked on the image description page. However, be aware the Flash version produces a soft image that doesn't stop zooming at 100%, and the non-flash version displays heavily compressed JPGs (the results may vary depending on your internet connection).
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very helpful, not just for the nomination but for using the picture in the future, if you uploaded a version of it that is say half as big as this and listed that one under "other versions". That would give the pic a bigger chance of being used on more Wikipedias. cart-Talk 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree W.carter. Someone suggested already that idea for my previous nom. I'll do that tonight. You can use the MediaWiki thumbnailer to request smaller resolution images, up to a point. For example
is the largest it will create and 39MP in size. You just take the URL from the "Other resolutions" links below the image, and change the XXXpx bit to a larger value. If you get an error, you've gone too big. -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I don't have a problem with big files or tech things, but a good photo should also be avaliable for those with slower broadband connection and less tech knowhow. cart-Talk 09:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But to be honest, that's really the responsibility of Commons file description pages and the MediaWiki software behind them, to offer various sizes. Stock photo sites and Flickr for example, don't expect photographers to upload different sized source images. I think it is pretty dire that the largest "Other resolutions" that is offered as standard is just 0.4MP. The sizes 320x, 640x, 800x, 1024x are VGA, SVGA and XVGA dating from 1990 -- before some people here were even born! Perhaps a Phabricator ticket is needed... -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Didn'tknow they don't show up on FPC page. 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Excellent details level and size, however, IMHO, the composition is important and the railing cut is too distracting to me. --The Photographer 10:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 14:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Provisional support As always, Colin, your compositional approach to the contemporary City skyline is excellent. But I'd like to know if it might be possible to burn down those clouds at upper left? They made me aquint the first time I looked at them. Realistic, no doubt, but probably not a reaction you want viewers to have. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel If you check with The Photographers Ephemeris, the sun is just to the left of this scene, lighting up those clouds with an "ou! ou! my eyes!" brightness. It was quite a challenge with this lighting because of the effect of this glare. I dislike when images are adjusted so the maximum white is just paper white. So if I've translated this scene onto your monitor, then I'm pleased. But, also, perhaps your monitor is set too bright -- most monitors are default set far too bright. The image might be a better one without such clouds, but that's what was there, and I don't really want to make them unrealistic. -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I knew you'd give a satisfactory answer either way, but I had to ask. (Due to my hopefully-soon-to-be-resolved computer issues, I'm using a laptop monitor at the moment, which I grant is perhaps different from the desktop monitor I have used for years). Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist-hp, this is a three-exposure HDR and the darkest frame has plenty headroom. So there's no "overexposed" technical flaw. The left part of the image is significantly darker and more contrasty than reality, because if it was reality then your monitor would burn your retina if you stared at a white Word document. I can understand from a composition value that one may not want such bright clouds there, or that it could have been taken at a different time of day, but the lighting is representative of what it is, and most certainly not "overexposed". -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whether too bright or overexposed, the optical result is the same for me: not optimal light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:City_from_One_Bishops_Square.jpg&oldid=207027892"