Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View to One World Trade Center.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:View to One World Trade Center.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 18:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created and uploaded by Olga1969 – nominated by Lucas – LucasT 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Support
Neutral Need verticals fix and a less important noise reduction in the sky --The Photographer 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I contacted the photographer and offered to edit it from the RAW file, if these remain the only issues. – LucasT 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Regretful
Oppose because of the lights. I get what the photographer intended, but the new WTC blends with the sky way too much to serve as the intended centerpiece. The wonderful contrast with the golden reflections unfortunately only serve to exaggerate the issue. KennyOMG (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC) - Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with KennyOMG. This wouldn't have been an issue if the pic wasn't so heavily saturated. I downloaded it and desaturated as much as 36% before it looked more normal and the tower contrasted very nicely with the sky, the pic also looked clearer. Taking a look at this user's photos most of them are the same way so maybe it's a setting on her camera. I would gladly support a desaturated and vertical-fixed version though. --cart-Talk 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I nominated this picture for QI (it passed), but I'm not sure about FP. cart, I'd like to see your edited version. Olga1969, is it OK with you if we have a chance to look at cart's edit of your photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think we can wait until Lucas has got a response from Olga. As nominator he is now aware of this and may act on it when/if he reprocesses the file from RAW. I can put my version in my dropbox later if you want to check it out. --cart-Talk 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this version because as Kenny points out correctly it was overcooked—it looks like it should be used in an ad (not that that's always a dealbreaker). I would be interested in cart's version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I left a link to a rough draft on Ikan's talk page. --cart-Talk 09:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment As others already pointed out this picture deserves a careful postprocessing and could then certainly become FP. --Code (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination For now I think it's tidier to close this and renominate later when the verticals, tilt, noise and oversaturation are fixed by someone, preferably working from the RAW file. – LucasT 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
