Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] White House

The White House in Washington DC is the residence of the President of the United States.
The White House in Washington DC is the residence of the President of the United States.
Alternative taken (as suggested) 20 minutes earlier.
Alternative taken (as suggested) 20 minutes earlier.
Reason
High encyclopedic value.
Articles this image appears in
Washington DC
Creator
User:Noclip
  • Support as nominator — Noclip 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Sorry, although no big technical flaws, I would've supported it if you had took this picture like 20 or so minutes an hour or so (When there's still enough sun to give it a slight yellow cast, probably winter time (northern hemisphere) when the sun is more south and gives it some majestic glow) earlier when the sky is nicely balanced with the white house, now it's just too dark. Also it looks unusually soft for some reason, maybe slight camera shake? --antilivedT | C | G 06:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can live with the minor jpg artefacts, but the motion blur is a killer. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is motion blur? Noclip 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Slightly weak support Would be full support excecpt for the tiny blurring of the flag. Sorry --St.daniel Talk 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per antilived, it's just not as good as it could be; should be a relatively easy photograph to compose. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too dark, too tightly cropped on sides, blurry, easy to reproduce. --TotoBaggins 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I could overlook everything except the motion blur on the flag. It sticks out like a sore thumb.--HereToHelp 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There are several current FPs with blurry flags (US Capitol Dome, Washington Monument come to mind). Noclip 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support It looks great to me, but even I noticed the motion blur on the flag (which I'm not sure is really avoidable), and I'm no expert. Terri G 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Good image quality and I can appreciate the difficulty of taking a good shot of the White house, particularly at night. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Support either with preference for the edit. The difference in lighting doesn't bother me at all but I do agree that the slightly wider perspective helps with context. Noclip, is this a stitched mosaic image as with others you have taken in DC? If so, I think it would be a good thing to correct the inward lean of the building as part of the stitch, but it isn't that significant so I'm not going to hold back support over it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Both images are single shots. I tried altering the perspective on the second one but the ground ended up looking awkward. Noclip 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'm not yet convinced. Both shots look a bit flat. Plus in the second one the vantage point is extremely low, almost as if you rested the camera on the pavement. The surroundings offer little contrast and the blurred fountain obscures part of the building. Due to the low vantage point the hedge is also fairly obstrusive (yeah yeah, I'm not suggesting you cut it down before a reshoot, just bring a tall tripod ;-) ). --Dschwen 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're kidding, right? You can't set up a tripod in a 2-block radius of the White House. Noclip 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, thats news to me. Any other way of getting a higher perspective? If not, then I guess the solution is more light. --Dschwen 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- is it just me or are the flags REALLY blurry? Tenio 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)