Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Station at Dusk

Union Station at Dusk

Reason: Go ahead and tear it apart, a 32-piece panorama I'm sure everyone will find a ton of problems with.
Articles this image appears in: Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
Creator: User:Noclip
Nominator: Noclip

Support — Noclip 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If your reason for nominating this image is "Go ahead and tear it apart, a 32-piece panorama I'm sure everyone will find a ton of problems with" I don't really see why it's here at all --203.54.74.6 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The vantage point is too low, the hedge is spoiling it for me. Plus for a 32-piece pano the overall quality is a bit low, did you use a tripod? --Dschwen 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I used a tripod, and next time I'm there I'll try to cut down the hedge. Noclip 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Could you not just take the photo from in front of the hedge? *no idea by the way, I'm only asking*. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or bring a ladder :-) --Dschwen 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nominator already predicted everyone will "tear it apart". If he has no confidence in the photo, why should anyone else? --UCLARodent 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FPC fails again (sic from discussion page). Why so much negativism (starting with the nominator) and condescension, this isn't very smart if we want to get better contributions to this page. The quality is low but there is still the possibility of improvement through downsampling. Agree with Dschwen, the shooting position was not the best.Alvesgaspar 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was already downsampled from 14,000 pixels wide. Noclip 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First I have to commend Noclip on getting a good shot of this station. I was just there this summer, and because of the traffic patterns, buildings and terrain there are few places to get a good shot. You could try getting even closer to avoid the traffic lights, but would then get major perspective distortion. Next time rent a helicopter. --Bridgecross 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it needs downsampling.. Looks sharp enough, but it is quite low in resolution for a 32 segment panorama. Why did you downsample it so far noclip? I don't know what camera you're using but a typical 6 megapixel camera should be able to capture that sort of detail with only 4-8 segments, I would have thought. Anyway, the main reason for the oppose is simply the angle. It is a decent capture but poor composition. As others have said, it might be a difficult subject to capture but that doesn't mean it should be FP either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with Props - I hope to god you're joking about the helicopter, Bridgecross. Anyway, per everyone else, this shot really does have too many faults to be FP. It's also got an odd perspective; the hedge is in fact too distorting as it has been suggested above. Please (I beg you) excuse the horrible quality of the example image I put up; I used Windows Paint to make it. =O (The props are for the effort and the decent shot of a difficult subject) --Iriseyes 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't tilt, that's sloppy trimming. If it was tilted the flagpoles and traffic lights would be too. Noclip 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sloppy trimming? What are you talking about? It's in the interior of the image, and due to the perspective as mentioned above. Debivort 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy trimming of the hedge. And the perspective had to be distorted so that the subject wouldn't be, the image isn't called "hedge." Noclip 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh haha, I see, I thought trimming of the panorama assembly was meant. Debivort 04:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per everyone, maybe renting a RC helicopter and mount your camera on it and have some sort of remove release and have really really good skill to control the helicopter would do... :-p Also it would be better if taken about 30minutes before it was taken, the lighting is more evenly matched. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lighting changes [1] -Fcb981 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I'd be more interested in the image if the building had some exterior lighting and the night sky had some more gradient added to it. I've tried to approximate and example as above in version #3. But a better example can be seen here. The original just seems a little flat overall due to lack of natural or manmade light. But it's a nice image as far as focus and stitching. It's not a terrible image by any stretch, but just not all that worthy of a FP for me.--Mactographer 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Per above, and the flag on the LHS has a piece that is duplicated (presume stitching fault) --Fir0002 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Has no chance succeeding, comments turning in to a circus (my fault). Noclip 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Julia\^talk 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. Julia\^talk 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]