Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marina City, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg

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

File:Marina City, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 18:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marina City is a mixed-use residential/commercial building complex located in the center of Chicago, Illinois. It sits on the north bank of the Chicago River directly across from the Loop district. The complex, that was designed in 1959 and completed in 1964, consists of two corncob-shaped 179 m, 65-story towers.
  • I would also consider a Nikon D810 if I lost my camera and all my lenses... Canon's camera tech has fallen some way behind Nikon, but I'm hoping their next camera (there are rumours of a Canon 3D with a 30+ megapixel camera and hopefully much better sensor technology in 2015) will match or beat Nikon's. In any case, with stitching and HDR, my images are still sharper, higher resolution and have more dynamic range than any D810 image. ;-) But it takes quite a lot more work to reach that point, that's for sure. And sorry to hear of your stolen gear. :-( Diliff (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Roger Wilco! Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support you have to be careful when you are parking there... :P --Kadellar (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good work, but the picture looks to me unnatural. The human eye sees inen such a high tower (179 m) with never exactly perpendicular lines. In addition, the color of the sky does not fit at the edges where the sky together. Sorry! --Steindy (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it hasn't been. Please, see my comment above to Daniel, Poco2 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment All well and good. Do you share these views, especially in the absence of converging lines of a 179 m high tower? Visually, the towers even act as if they widen upward (see optical illusions). --Steindy (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've had this exact debate with someone on the English wikipedia and I've come to the conclusion that some people perceive vertical perspective in a photo differently to others. Not everyone sees parallel lines as widening. I don't see them widening here anyway. I also disagree that the human eye sees converging lines the way a camera does. Our eyes have a wide field of view (120 degrees vertically and almost 180 degrees horizontally) but our fovea only allows us to see any detail in a very narrow field of view (2 degrees). We scan our eyes around a scene to see the details and each time our eye settles on a vertical line, it becomes vertical because it is centred in our vision. Another vertical line might in theory appear to be leaning inwards in the corner of your eye but I challenge you to perceive it. I've tried many times and never have my eyes perceived an inward leaning vertical line in the periphery of my vision. And of course when my eye moves to look at that vertical line, it becomes straight because it becomes centred, as I mentioned before. In any case, all this is academic. Although there are some potential drawbacks to vertical perspective correction, it's an established practice in architectural photography for a reason. Diliff (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice. --P e z i (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very good work, interesting building --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support like the parking section in the two buildings. Nikhil (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the sky is not consistent? It looks a lot like a stitching fault, although from what I have read above, it is not stitched? I think it's most likely a strange effect of the clouds, but has been exaggerated by the processing. Also, the building behind and to the left transitions from a deep aquamarine to a light blue-green. I'm not insisting that it must be a processing problem (there could be lighting conditions that create this effect?) and I can see that it's the same effect in all versions of the image, but it does look very strange to me. The sky's inconsistency and the processing makes it look a bit unrealistic looking to me. Diliff (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    David: there is no stitching and no editing in this picture apart from brightening the darker areas. Will look anyhow with more detail into it tomorrow, right know I cannot access the raw file. Poco2 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it's just the result of strange clouds and weather then. :-) I believe you, of course, but it puzzles me. As I said, the building on the left looks very very strange, with completely different colour and brightness at the top and bottom. Diliff (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    David: I looked into it in detail and can confirm that there is nothing strange. The area in the middle of the sky are clouds and the colors in the left building in the background are due to the lighting conditions. I can send you the RAW file if you want to see it on your own and even give it a try. I would be curious about the result. Poco2 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's ok. If it is in the RAW file then it's just the way the scene was. I know the lighter part of the sky in the middle is clouds, but the strange part for me is the way it becomes a deep blue very quickly, then gets lighter again on the right side of the sky. There doesn't seem to be any clouds there, so I don't know why it lightens. And there is still the unexplained difference in colour and brightness in the buildings. I don't think there is much I could do to the RAW file anyway. It's not a blending problem, and trying to remove lighting transitions is not easy. Diliff (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This problem remember me this nomination Each person has their own perception of reality, so no one can be wrong. --The Photographer (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Nobody else was there when this photo was taken, so we cannot say that we know for sure what it should look like. But I have worked on enough photos to know when something looks strange because of post-processing, rather than because reality itself was strange. I do believe that Poco hasn't screwed up or deliberately messed with the photo to enhance it beyond reality, but I think he has perhaps accidentally pushed it too far. I'm sure there were some strange lighting conditions at the time he took the photo which would explain the reflections in the windows of the building behind and the darker part of the sky, but I think the post-processing has exaggerated them and made them look a bit too abnormal. Just my opinion though. My perception of reality is unique. ;-) Also, I agree with you that the the other nomination you mentioned looks a bit unrealistic. But then again, one of my recent nominations seemed to get the same response, and I didn't think it looked particularly unrealistic (night photos are much harder to say though, because our eyes never see in darkness the way a camera does). Diliff (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Marina_City,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_01.jpg&oldid=148104731"