Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Toledo Skyline Panorama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Toledo Skyline Panorama
- Reason
- This is a great view of the World Heritage Listed Toledo skyline at an atmospheric time of day. It is a four segment panoramic image so the resolution is pretty good (4748x2072). Hopefully you guys won't have a problem with the 'inkiness' of the photo. I could have lifted the brightness a bit but I think it spoils the balance of the scene so I left it as-is.
- Articles this image appears in
- Toledo, Spain
- Creator
- Diliff
- Nominator
- Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
- Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support! --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah well I don't even know what you mean by inky... In any case good composition and great lighting. Unfortunately one of your shots has focus issues which is apparent as a contrast change in the roof tiles about 1100px from the left edge. support (maybe weakish). --Dschwen(A) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Inky was just a term that Janke used to describe the overly dark shadows in the Montserrat pic... I thought it was a cute word and decided to recycle it. ;-) As for the focus issue.. you're right but I just had a look at the original files at 100% and it is extremely minor.. When downsampled, it is almost completely unnoticable but I think the reason you can see it on the Alcazar's roof is that it upsets the delineation a bit.. You're right though, you must have gone over it with a very fine toothed comb. I didn't see it during the processing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- very fine toothed comb, yep, might even have been a louse comb... ...oh... ...I see, thats where the term nitpicking comes from. Another lesson learned :-) --Dschwen(A) 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Inky was just a term that Janke used to describe the overly dark shadows in the Montserrat pic... I thought it was a cute word and decided to recycle it. ;-) As for the focus issue.. you're right but I just had a look at the original files at 100% and it is extremely minor.. When downsampled, it is almost completely unnoticable but I think the reason you can see it on the Alcazar's roof is that it upsets the delineation a bit.. You're right though, you must have gone over it with a very fine toothed comb. I didn't see it during the processing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support What a nice image. If you could move the cranes for me it would really be great! InvictaHOG 23:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Decent quality image, but I disagree with the "atmospheric" time of day - personally I feel it has dulled the colors of the roof tops and hillside. It's a good enough image, but I can't help thinking how much better it'd have been at a better time of day. --Fir0002 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support I'd like to see another edit somewhere between the two we have now. The original seems to dull but the edit a little much. at this point I would probably go with the edit though. -Fcb981 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit. Well meant, but it ruins the dusky atmosphere. --Dschwen(A) 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, but the dusky atmosphere is probably not quite as enc as it hides some of the details --Fir0002 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- But the details are not hidden.. They're still there and still visible - just dark. And anyway, artificially increasing the brightness to unrealistic levels is not enc either is it? I know perceived brightness is quite subjective but sometimes a bright scene is not appropriate. If you were trying to illustrate what a dark room looks like, you wouldn't normalise the exposure. You'd leave it dark because that was what it looked like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the dusky atmosphere is probably not quite as enc as it hides some of the details --Fir0002 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- question - why are all the roofs on the right so much darker than the left ones? Are they receiving less sunlight? Debivort 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support original, oppose edit.. That ain't inky, it's just dusky... (But do I see a 1/2-px stitching error in the long roof?) --Janke | Talk 09:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support, oppose edit Excellent image. WoodenTaco 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful image. Lesgles (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, oppose edit 1 Simply beautiful. --♥Tohru Honda13♥Talk 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support original; abstain edit 1 Original image is terrific. Hello32020 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Original per beautiful. Arjun 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Great Panorama! - Hpfan9374 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Support original, weak oppose to edit - Great cityscape, love the contrast of the medieval architecture with the modern construction crane in the background. Caknuck 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nigh-invisible stitching errors don't bother me. Noclip 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Original. The fact that its slightly tilted just makes it look nicer. Great Photo!!!!!! :-) Ilikefood 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support edit 1 I knew it was Diliff's pic before I saw it full size. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Both Both are beautiful pictures that are destined for FP status. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg Trebor 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
