Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpg

File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 04:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info Now that winter's over I'm back to photographing Canberra's architecture. This is a 3-image panorama of the High Court of Australia. I tried a few different angles and compositions but I like this one best.
•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 05:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but not particularly sharp or high on wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'll have to strike my comment about the sharpness; I judged this while travelling with a laptop according to my usual standards for my large monitor, and looking back on it the sharpness is actually adequate (not perfect in the corners but not disqualifying), so apologies for that. However, it just doesn't wow me so I'll maintain a weak oppose. Maybe some clouds or shooting closer to sunset would help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose per King. Sorry about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks to me as if it was upscaled. Given subject an light I'd expected a much sharper picture. The subject is FP-worthy anyways. --Code (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the feedback guys;

• This is not upscaled. The original images have heights of 5494 pixels (21MP camera) but due to overlapping on the stitch the output is very slightly larger.
• As for sharpness, I was using one of the sharpest 24mm primes you can buy at F/8 on a FF camera, so this is as good as it gets. Considering that this is a 35MP image, I think it is well up to modern FP standards. This image was taken with a similarly-sharp lens and is smaller in dimension (26MP), yet no problems there (exact same processing too). Perhaps the smooth surfaces (cement, glass) of this building create the appearance of a lack of sharpness? (And yes, a lot of people downscale and apply lots of sharpening algorithms, which biases peoples' perceptions of "sharp". I prefer to avoid that type of information loss.)
• As for wow, that's obviously subjective, but this composition is the most well-balanced one I could find at the location. Thanks again for the comments -- Thennicke (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - My main issue really isn't with sharpness. I would just say that the National Carillon is a more compelling subject. I'll think about changing my vote, but whatever it is that might make me feel wowed by a view of this building, I'm not feeling it. Sorry, I know that's a frustrating comment for a photographer to read. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Not a problem Ikan. My intention is to photograph the important government buildings while I'm living here, but some are admittedly ugly! Then again, this could be seen as a good example of brutalist architecture, where the ugliness/blandness is part of the aesthetic? [1] (It doesn't help that the native vegetation here is so bland) Whether that fits in with FPC's "wow" criteria is open for debate I suppose. Thanks for the comment -- Thennicke (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - It could, so it could be argued that it's fairest for me to abstain. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I passed few times to see sharpness problems, but couldnt find anything. But its summer there, wont be sharp like in winter, but this one has no issues. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Correct picture and obvious QI but no more than that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Question Were some wires cloned out at the right? Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: I didn't do any cloning, no -- Thennicke (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thennicke: OK. Because I can't figure out what those lines are from the building to the edge of the image otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Oh, those are high-tension wires which hold up a display outside the National Gallery. I didn't see them at first -- Thennicke (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose A bit strange composition IMO. It is a lot of steps, handrail. The building loses on a background. --KSK (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)