Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/City of London skyline

City of London skyline[edit]

Reason: I'll add for disclosure that this image is downsampled to 50% of it's original size for the sake of image quality. The full size image has some unfortunate artifacting in the fine detail of the buildings and noise as a result of the high dynamic range in the scene as I had to lift shadows and suppress highlights somewhat. In my opinion the image looks a bit ragged at 100%. The original is linked as an 'other version' on the image page and if you insist you can vote for that image as an alternative. ;-)

That said, I do think the composition and detail of this version is still excellent and is a view that not a lot of tourists are able to get, as I took it from the London City Hall viewing platform on the top floor which is not usually open to the public except on specific open days. For those interested, this is another image I took from the viewing platform with a random stranger for context! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: City of London
Creator: Diliff

Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good in the article; another London article with a good image added. I wouldn't mind a bit more river in front of that bottom boat, it just looks a bit tight. Possibly not one of Diliff's very best, but we're judging against criteria, and this seems to meet them all. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider including a bit more of the river, but I thought that it would make the left-side a bit unbalanced, and there were distracting objects to the bottom left like the HMS Belfast and its shadow on the river. The hard thing when doing a panorama with moving elements is guessing the framing correctly. I shot this handheld from left to right and I had to guess how much room I needed to allow at the bottom of the frame for the incoming boat. I could have zoomed out slightly but as usual, you can't always get everything right in one shot. As I mentioned, the dynamic range was a challenge too. I took a series of panoramas from this view with different exposures, framing, boats etc but I think this was probably the best overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image. --Leivick (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The boats form an important part of the image. Do you know what they are? Ferries, tour boats, small cruise ship? Rmhermen (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they are tour/cruise boats, not public ferries. The one on the left is chartered out apparently, but the one on the right is a regular tourist boat running up and down the Thames. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good Job Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition Muhammad(talk) 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as encyclopedic, high quality image. Fletcher (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture of a fantastic subject. Great! Darth Newdar (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-shot, clear and encyclopedic. Might not be "Wow!" but that's not among the criteria :) Todor →Bozhinov 10:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're right, it isn't in the criteria, but most people apply it anyway, whether its implicit or explicitly stated. I have always thought that "wow" certainly helps the composition, but sometimes a clear, detailed, straight-forward encyclopaedic image is of more value to Wikipedia than an awe-inspiring-but-of-limited-educational-value image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely true, we're building an encyclopedia after all :) Best, Todor →Bozhinov 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ but the picture looks a little faded.--Caspian blue^Gwansim? 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how you could see it as faded. It was taken on a crisp, sunny day and the scene incorporates the entire luminance range available, from dark shadows to bordering on blown whites in the sunlight. Perhaps you wanted to see the colours artificially enhanced? This is about as bright and colourful as the city can look. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS: You should see it on a dull, overcast day. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The picture has a bit of red cast, that's why the picture looks like a faded picture taken with a film. If you can adjust the tone, that would be great. We all know London's weather :), but well, the place in a smokey weather was also great (for me). --Caspian blue 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think you're right that it has a red cast. If that were the case, the whites in the scene (the boats, the building on the far right) would be red tinted too, but they're not, they're very close to neutral. Anyway, if anything the scene should lean slightly towards yellow-orange as it was taken about 2 hours from sunset and as winter approaches (we're 2 months from winter solstice now), the sun stays fairly low on the horizon where it warms the colours a bit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, no. Here is not a place for what is wrong or right. I don't think I'm wrong though. I only suggested the picture to be enhanced by editing with photoshop or others. Canon cameras are known for its susceptibility to red right and due to the little (I clearly said "a bit") red cast by the time of taking the picture as well, it really looks faded to me. I already tested the picture, and the white is indeed having a little pink tone.--Caspian blue 14:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I also disagree that here is not the place for right and wrong... If you are questioning something subjective, then yes, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but when you question something objective, then you are either right or wrong about it. You say you 'tested the picture', but how did exactly you do it? The method needs to be correct for the result to be correct. I checked the RGB values for a random pixel of white on the boats and found it to be R=242, G=239 and B=234. This is a pale yellow (although practically indistinguishable as yellow) because R and G are slightly more dominant and R+G = yellow. For it to be a pink tone, the dominant colours would have to be R+B which creates pink, but nowhere on the whites can I find anywhere that has dominant R+B. As such, I think you are objectively wrong about the colour cast. ;-) If you still believe it to be red/pink, I think you need to look at your monitor's colour balance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh, since you're asserting your point of view so strongly, I have to say you're still wrong about your opinion. I am tired of not only talking with you for this but also your hostile attitude to my mere suggestion from good faith. Regarding evidence, I didn't want to steal your thunder as uploading the tested picture. I was playing your photo with color adjust function and adjusting the red cast of the picture produced good result. You can try it by yourself since you appear to be familiar with photography knowledge and do not assume good faith on me. Anyway, I can't really be sure about the random choice of yours. The white colored objects consist of various tones, and you "randomly picked a little portion". If you want to continue your argument, that is your business not mine from now. I retract my vote since I don't want to involve in this. Regards.--Caspian blue 16:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're retracting your vote because you don't like the discussion we've had? This is not an issue of good faith. I have good faith that you believe it has a red cast (as I said, your monitor's colour balance may be wrong), but as I said, the absolute RGB values for the colour of whites in the image is not a subjective thing and there is right and wrong in logical terms. Yes, I chose a random little portion and yes there is some variation in tone, but I made sure that it was representative of all the whites. I challenge you to find a single pixel amongst the whites in which there is RB dominance. There just isn't any - green is more dominant than blue everywhere, and that makes yellow, not pink. Anyway, if you won't discuss it in terms of logic, then we'll just continue going roung in circles, so I'll end it here too. But I think you should reinstate your vote unless you want to appear as though you've had a hissy fit because I disagreed with you. ;-) Obviously the nomination doesn't rely on your vote, but it comes across as a bit precious. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent paedogogical composition, putting the daikon in the center was a good choice. Shii (tock) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Spencer^T♦^C 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this picture. --Silvestra (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User's 4th edit of 5. Spencer^T♦^C 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if only as a log of the ever changing face of London. A wonderful quality and almost impossible to reshoot due to British Weather rarely being this nice! gazhiley (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User's 2nd edit of 2. Spencer^T♦^C 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Competent photographer + nice weather in London + City Hall open house day = an unlikely combination. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the composition is weighted out of balance. If there was just a smidge more empty sky, horizontally, on the left side of the photo, I'd like it better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:City of London skyline from London City Hall 2 - Oct 2008.jpg MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg, was duplicate. MER-C 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]