Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pauliyas Hongkong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pauliyas Hongkong

I think this panorama shot is quite breathtaking, and deserving of praise.

• Nominate and support. - humblefool® 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. This is an awesome panorama. Strong Support. --SonicChao ^talk 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Mostly I would like to see a larger version, but there are also some minor stitching errors to the right of the image. I don't think the blown sky on the right is too much of a problem. --Tewy 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, per above. --Janke | Talk 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 — Seemed a tad bright, so I modified it a bit. ♠ SG →Talk 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either. Amazing panorama of HK Island skyline! typhoonchaser 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 There are a few blown highlights, but this is still very good. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit1. Sure, the brightness of the image is dominated by sky and water, but the detail is in the skyline, which is rather dark. The edit makes it harder to see details in the skyline. --Dschwen 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose original. If that courthouse below isn't deemed FP worthy I cannot support this one with a good conscience. It is ok craftsmanship, and the subject is prominent, but the lighting is suboptimal. The picture is also on the small side. Most buildings in the skyline are a mere 150px high. For me this doesn't cut it. --Dschwen 10:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agreed with you about the courthouse below but in my opinion this one has a 'wow' factor which the courthouse hasn't. Pstuart84 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose both the contrast seems washed out. Also, though it exceeds the 1000 px criteria horizontally, it is only 480 pixels tall and the detail suffers. --Bridgecross 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit. Very nice and informative. enochlau (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1. There are a few blown highlights and stitching errors and I would like a larger version, but this this is otherwise quite a good image. NauticaShades 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit1, impressive image. - Mailer Diablo 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Very nice, amazing, image. Hello32020 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - fabulous, really sets the standard for cityskape panoramas. Stevage 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I can't help but think I must be seeing a different image to everyone else. There are HUGE stitching flaws in this, including the duplicated 'half' boat about a quarter way across, and some big obvious joins right through, but especially visible in the water, some of which I could see on the image page even before opening it full size. There's also weird changes in colouring across the image, very noticeable even in thumbnail, the most obvious being where the water changes colour about a third way across. Also per Dschwen's reasons above. If this is the new standard for cityscapes, then the standard's changed. --jjron 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm, I think I see your point, but the half-boat shouldn't be a stitching "flaw" - the boat had moved into the next picture while User:Pauliyas took the photos, I suppose that's rather unfortunate. I would think that the colour of the sky, including the clouds, reflects onto the seawater? I'm not so sure though. typhoonchaser 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You could be right about the colour being due to reflections. I suspected it was due to camera settings being changed or being used in auto mode. Either way I find it quite unattractive. You are right about the boat, but to me this is a stitching flaw, and incidentally probably quite easily fixed using the dreaded cloning, especially in an image this small (height wise) where the detail is limited. Only in the last couple of days it's been pointed out on FPC how easy it supposedly is to make perfect panos, so I don't know why we would accept these significant flaws, whatever their origin. Oh, BTW, I also think it's cropped too tight to the tallest building, which I forgot to say in my original oppose, but that's just a minor quibble. --jjron 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. You are quite right about the stitching errors. We have much better city panoramas as FP. Alvesgaspar 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jjron. The coloring changes (which I expect are due to the clouds on the left) are too much for me. Also, I'm not particularly good at seeing stitching errors, but these ones are somewhat blatant... tiZom_(2¢) 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support although it would be a little nicer if it was larger. Still, great shot. Mike 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Stitching flaws are unforgivable (I've seen images shot down for far, far less noticeable flaws than one-and-a-half boats). I think we need to start taking vertical resolution into account for panoramas - it's all very well sticking a lot of frames together and getting a huge horizontal size to push you over the 1000px mark, but this image would be useless for printing. A non-panoramic shot with this level of detail would get destroyed here. --YFB ¿ 03:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted , although it was quite close. Raven4x4x 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)