Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 22:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info A 225 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall from the gallery. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. The large purple mushrooms / flying saucers are fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs, installed in 1969 to solve an echo problem. They are lit by an array of LED stage lights. The stage is empty and strangely grey compared to the colour surrounding it. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support New size standard and excellent sharpening. Colors a bit purple aura, however, it look like reals colors. Maybe my favorite picture this month on FPC. The composition look also excellent, however, I would like to see more in the bottom, what happend?. Anyway, congratulations for this contribution --The Photographer 22:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The purple colour is the result of the fairly monochromatic stage lights, which are a pain to photograph. Coloured stage lights are always artificial in their effect, but these LED ones seem especially unnatural. As for the bottom, well that's the lowest I've got. The balcony handrail prevents being able to see much more below and I wasn't prepared to dangle my camera over the edge to get a better view. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explain --The Photographer 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support very nice, but who need this size of an image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The other day Slaunger told me he was proud to see one of his large panoramas on display as a huge poster. The interactive viewer makes it possible to explore the scene, rather than just look at it at 1980x1024. I think this is a rich enough scene to reward exploring in detail. It also looks great on a 5K monitor ;-) -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Absolutely flawless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Great achievement! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support stunning --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. I guess a lot of effort has been put into this picture. --Ximonic (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size, sharpness and colors are impressive. But that's not all. Cut and composition are unbalanced und suboptimal. A full spheric projektion from a more central shooting location would have been the better choice here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have another panorama taken (but not yet processed) taken from a central box, lower down. I suspect it will have symmetry that is pleasing, but also contain a lot of the empty stage, which is less photogenic at this time. I felt this view showed more of the audience as well as the stage. While I won't argue about your opinion on the composition, I disagree that there is necessarily one best view -- a venue like this merits photographs from many locations A 360 projection like here would be wonderful but note that we were only given access on Open House day to a few boxes and to part of the gallery, neither of which are great for 360 views, and would be cluttered with fellow Open House visitors. Diliff told me has been trying for a long time to get photo access to the Albert Hall, and was not successful -- they are always busy setting up for performances and couldn't find a slot for him to be free to take photos. Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall shows this is not a frequently photographed venue, and most other photos are snapshots during a concert. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Technically excellent, but the colours are not typical of the Albert Hall in normal lighting. Charles (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles, as a concert venue, lit by whatever lighting the team wish to put on, I'm not sure what one would regard as "typical". See View from your seat and virtual tour for various examples (though since the JPGs on that site do not embed a colour profile, they appear way too saturated on my wide-gamut monitor with most browsers). Here's an example from Open House 2014 that has the discs coloured red. Here's one that is blue. Here's a single-shot photo take from a similar position with similar colours, though this time there's a red light on the roof and their saturation is higher. Do you have an example image that shows typical colours, or "normal lighting"? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment No I'm afraid not Colin, but I've been there 20+ times, hence my comment. The acoustic discs are off-white. Charles (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Charles, Ha! Yes I know what the colour of the discs are when there are no stage lights on ... because halfway through taking photos for this stitch, they turned off all the lights. Thinking my stitch was ruined, I held my breath for 90 seconds before they turned them all back on again. Whew! The unlit discs are like this photo. Not pretty, and probably would work better in a photo taken from lower down where the discs are not so prominent. I too have been to a classical concert, many many years ago, where the discs were not lit. But all the photos on the Albert Hall official site show them lit colourfully. This older classical concert photo shows the neutral lighting one might expect (though it doesn't include the discs, there's not purple in the gallery or on the organ), yet this recent classical concert photo shows the purple stage lights in the gallery and a purple organ, so I suspect would also have purple discs. A Google Image search for "Albert Hall Interior" has coloured discs vastly outnumbering unlit discs. So I disagree that there is "normal" lighting for the Albert Hall, which hosts many concerts and events with differing requirements for light, and suspect that un-coloured discs are now actually the minority situation, rather than "normal". -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! A very hard to get to subject. Well done, excellent technique, very pleasing composition, very high detail level. Valuable. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I love the colors ... slightly surreal, perhaps, but they add interest. And they make those accoustic discs look like what I thought them to be at first ... some way of trying to figure out how many holes it takes to fill the building (Sorry; you knoew someone was going to try that one ). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors