Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:One World Trade Center through the Oculus (91538).jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 06:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One World Trade Center viewed from the interior of the Oculus.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Viewing the rebuilt One World Trade Center through the top of the Oculus, part of a new transportation hub adjacent to the World Trade Center site. For context, the design of the Oculus is directly connected to the September 11th attacks, with its axis following the angle of the sun that morning, at the time the second tower fell. Nominating after a suggestion at QIC. — Rhododendrites talk06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This would work if blue line was on diagonal, rotated is better, but pixels are missing. I would reshoot. --Mile (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is a very well composed photograph, where the slighty diagonal adds dinamicity to the whole sublject; those ights on the left are placed perfectly. The general grey tones looks very fine. In some way it looks like a palm tree leave. Excellent job!Paolobon140 (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great photo. I'm not sure the OWTC would fit in (and be upright) the opening if this was done diagonally. The juxtaposition of that significant building adds a layer to the compo. --cart-Talk 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The horizontal aspect doesn't work for me. A vertical aspect crop (e.g. 3:4) strengthens and enlarges the central arc/building and has less of the rather grey walls. However, I'd prefer if this were done with a camera held that way, than further cropping this image -- it's already not particularly high resolution/detail. See File:WTC Transporation Hub interior 2017b.jpg -- not a great photo but shows the same subject in a vertical orientation. Looking at the category, I'm sure we can expect several FPs from this spectacular building, and several other attempts at this particular view (see [1], [2], [3], [4]). An HDR approach may also handle better the contrast between sky and interior which surely doesn't look that dark to the eye. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now we are opposing to photos on the grounds that there might some day be better photos here? Sounds strange to me, to be honest. Also this crop shows the "palm tree leaves" better. --cart-Talk 13:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • cart It's a generous suggestion. Don't underestimate hobby photographers what they can do to get great shot. Much more than reshoot. I did try that on Adobe, before I wrote. --Mile (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart, no, that's not the main reason for my oppose, which is the frame-orientation and the lighting. However, although this view was new to me, and is an interesting combination of the two elements, I'd like to support a photo at FPC because it is a great photo, not just because someone pointed a camera at a great subject. And also I do try to ensure the image is among the "finest" by checking out the category. Hence I shared my opinion that this building was spectacular and worthy of several FPs.
If you search on Google Images for "st paul's from one new change" you will see many photos where the photographer has framed St Pauls cathedral with the glass sides of "One New Change" shopping centre. Or search for "st paul's millennium bridge" where St Pauls is framed with the leading lines of the Millenium Bridge. Both views of St Pauls are "wow" views, captured innumerable times by millions of tourists, but that doesn't necessarily make any photo of it a "wow" photo. So, I think this here is a wow view, in a building with lots of potential, but I don't think the photo here is a wow photo for me. And I'm happy to wait for one. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture