Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1 singapore city skyline dusk panorama 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Singapore CBD[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2013 at 14:42:54 (UTC)

Original – Singapore CBD skyline
Reason
Considering that it was taken during dusk, the image is relatively sharp. Some of the important CBD landmarks, such as the Marina Bay Sands, Arts Science Museum, the Esplanade and the Supreme Court are captured. Overall, I find that it is quite a satisfying picture of the CBD.
Articles in which this image appears
Singapore
FP category for this image
Creator
Chensiyuan
  • Support as nominator --Arctic Kangaroo 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your view on what constitutes a 'satisfying picture' is clearly at odds with the standards imposed here at FPC. You are not looking at these with the kind of critical eye of an encyclopedian but rather that of someone hemped up on HDR crack experimenting with HDR. The halo around each and every building is a good example of what happens when HDR is not done well Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that calling him "hemped up on HDR crack" is a bit harsh. dllu (t,c) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although there is quite a bit of encyclopedic value in depicting the relative locations of the landmarks Marina Bay Sands, Esplanade, Supreme Court, and other important buildings, the technical standard is not acceptable for FP. In particular, it fails criterion 8 of the WP:Featured Picture Criteria: [a Featured Picture] avoids inappropriate digital manipulation; as well as criterion 1: [a Featured Picture shows no significant] image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. The post-processing in this image has caused some image noise in the sky, and bright halos around the buildings (especially around the OUB Centre). Another processing anomaly I have noticed are dark or unnatural spots in the middle of highlights, seen in the headlights of cars outside the Old Supreme Court (pic) and the yellow lights on the UOB Plaza 2 (pic) and the lights around the Supreme Court dome (pic) (this artifact seems to occur frequently in Photomatix Pro if settings are not correctly adjusted). In addition the image currently does not fulfill criterion 7 of the FP Criteria: ...has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English, since the file description is not written in full sentences or correct capitalization (and seems to be just a bunch of keywords about the notable landmarks depicted). It should be rewritten and link to the Wikipedia pages for the respective buildings. dllu (t,c) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The logo on the building in the middle center right looks like it was placed there, or had the color adjusted... It just looks fake. Check out those crazy buildings sliding off the picture in the bottom right corner. Sadly, this picture appears over-processed. Dusty777 02:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I am not a technological image specialist-- most people who read Wikipedia are not-- but I believe I am capable of looking at this image with a deeply critical eye (the eye of an enclclopedian, as it were) and I find this image to be very compelling. The halos around "each and every building" look to me like faint brightenings around one or two structures, and only serve to make those structures more distinct (i.e., I find that they are improved by these things, not degraded by them). I looked for the unnatural spots in the middle of headlights-- I can see headlights everywhere in this image (Singapore is a busy place!) with no spots in them, and have to search to begin to detect the anomalous black spots that have been mentioned (even with my critical eye). That it has not fulfilled criterion 7, an informative description in English, seems hardly a basis for disqualification: the description says-- in English-- that it is a picture of Singapore: that is enough for me to know exactly what it is (capitalization and complete sentences notwithstanding). As for the "crazy buildings" sliding off the edge of the image on the lower right, this is a result of the curvature of the lens with which the image was taken, not the result of any postprocessing or manipulation of the image-- I would have thought that was obvious and, in fact, if the author had attempted to correct for this curvature, THAT would have been reason for disqualification. The details captured here, HDRI or no, are amazing in their clarity (HDRI frequently improves an image that otherwise contains extremes of bright and dark-- if it was used here, it has made the image better, not worse, while taking nothing away from its beauty). The image is certainly large enough, eye-catching enough, sufficiently free of anomalies, and highly encyclopedic in its purpose and quality. I do not understand the almost emotional opposition to what is clearly, in my mind, a crisp and technically superior image of Singapore. KDS4444Talk 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I think it is a fabulous image. 86.151.119.14 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Shame you didn't log in before posting that, as now it will not count towards the final vote. KDS4444Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The image is fine for flickr. It is not a good example of the skyline nor is it a good example of HDR. That limits its EV. You might want to look at the linked image to see a good example of HDR for the Singapore Skyline: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/5665732556/lightbox/ Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion-- that image is also certainly striking. Can you explain to me in what ways this image is not representative of the Singapore skyline? (you must have some ideas, but I do not know what they are). Also, you have stated that this is not a good representative of HDR-- does this mean that it does not show undue influence from HDR technique? If so, then perfect: that must mean that it is clear of the criticism, voiced above, that it is over influenced by HDR... But if you mean that it is "poorly done" HDR, then I ask for some explanation as to exactly how, because the contrast between light and dark looks beautiful to me. The flickr image shown in the link above, though striking, seems a good deal less compelling to me than this picture. Or is there no way a person can win that argument? Are HDR images in some way preferred to others? If not, then why is this being discussed as though it is a criterion for being a featured picture? The details in the trees, the grass in the parks, the golden criss-cross of lines on the soccer fields-- this image makes me feel like I am really looking into a hyper-urban city! KDS4444Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The anomalous highlights are visible not only in car headlights, but also in almost every illuminated logo on the skyscrapers (one of which Dusty777 pointed out). Furthermore, there is a very significant amount of image noise throughout the sky. I have expanded the image description page and have crossed out my concern regarding that in my original comment. Now, as for the halos around the buildings, it is my personal opinion that it detracts from the value of the image when used in an encyclopedic context in that it is no longer a faithful representation of the scene. Aesthetically, I also find the dark halos around the bright clouds and bright halos around the dark clouds annoying. I have found that it is possible to tone map an image to capture a large dynamic range without producing significant halos. I agree with KDS4444 regarding the "buildings sliding off the edge". This picture correctly uses the rectilinear projection, which is the expected standard for architectural photography. The focal length is only 16 mm and therefore gives the impression of stretched buildings near the edge of the frame. dllu (t,c) 21:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I really don't like this picture sorry... The orange uplights on the top of a few of the buildings look so bad it looks like cheesy flame effects added to make it look like the city is on fire, and the logos on the top of the buildings (as mentioned above) look superimposed... The grey-fronted building looks almost fake as well with it being completely different in colour and shading to the entire rest of the city-scapre... Add to that the appearance that the bottom right corner appears to be stretching almost cartoon-esque as it falls into a sinkhole and I really really don't like this sorry... I think this picture would be better if taken in daylight, thus avoiding the light effects, and using stitching or something that avoids the distortion. gazhiley 13:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)