Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore.jpg

Bangalore Town Hall[edit]

Reason: Good quality, EV, resolution and view. The building is situated such that there is traffic from 3 sides and the only time to get a clear view is a few seconds between the traffic light change. Had to dispose many images to get a clear view. FWIW, many Bangalore residents were surprised to see how nice the town hall looked in the picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Bangalore Town Hall, Bangalore
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it is leaning a bit to the left. --Dschwen 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please put up an edit? I am not very sure of what to do. --Muhammad(talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perspective correction to begin with. Set vertical guides in you stitching software. I won't spend time on editing this unless I have the original material, it would be a waste of time. --Dschwen 13:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- Seems like there is a stitching/blending error in the patch of sky which is enclose by the green sign on top of the building. Towards the right a vertical line on the building continues into the sky. The coordinates are: 1520,277 to 1520,320. A similar vertical line can be found starting at 275,545. The change of the stonework's colour on the far right of the building (again, along the vertical axis) is also a bit odd. There is also a slight change of colour running horizontally to the left of the big gold "1935" sign. Sorry to be so pedantic, but several minor problems can add up. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore --- on looking at the 260px thumbnail, it seems like there is a halo running round most of the left side and top of the building. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure blending to make the sky look more dramatic? --Dschwen 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No exposure blend. The sky was a naturally like this. Probably some PS error introduced. --Muhammad(talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also looks like a vertical line of odd color change below the power cable on the left side. It's part of the halo but looks unnatural. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the vertical line at 275,545 that I referred to above. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Sorry, I totally forgot to give you feedback on this image previously. As NotFromUtrecht mentioned, there are a few minor problems that add up to a bigger problem. :-) If you wanted, I could try to reprocess/restitch it for you, and see if I could improve it? Up to you. Just email me if you do. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Edit 1. The edit fixes all of the major issues I think, but I do kind of agree with Blieusong about the lack of wow. But then again, I always think that EV is the most important thing, wow is just a bonus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV!--Mbz1 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to oppose again on a picture of you. First, size is ridiculously small given the fact this is a multi pictures stitch, and that you own a 10 mpix camera. Second, this picture looks like having been taken en passant and has nothing (in my eyes) that makes me "wow, this is something I would have love to catch myself" or "wow how did he do that" (contrary to many of your superb macro shots). Third, the minor stitch error already mentionned. Fourth, I would at least apply minor perspective correction ; since the picture has small FOV, this wouldn't make the picture look unatural. Maybe high EV, but then, should you feature all pics that has EV ? There would be many candidates for sure. - Blieusong (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come now, size is more than 4mp which is very large. The fact that my cam has up to 10mp should mean nothing. About the "wow", like I mentioned, I showed the image to some locals and they were surprised to see the clear view and the angle from which the picture was taken. One local went as far as setting it as his laptop wallpaper. --Muhammad(talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but I Keep opposing for the two first reasons I mentioned (and although David Iliff did good job with the restitching). I'm not gonna say more about the no wow issue. No wow is no wow... About size issue : 4mp may be enough, but certainly not very large. Maybe this was large in 2002 (I remember I bought a camera with such resolution by then)... And you could have save yourself some extra work and take this in a single shot, you'd still have kept room for further downscaling. Some might say that extra resolution wouldn't add to EV. - Blieusong (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The criteria requires a minimum size of 1000px, which is sufficient to view an image on screen, or print at standard article size. This image has much higher resolution thant that, and provides all information it can about the building. Higher resolution would make the people recognisable, but would not add EV. Elekhh (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw for now. Thanks for all the comments. I sincerely wish all nominations received such constructive feedback. --Muhammad(talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you consider withdrawing your withdrawal? :-) I've just uploaded Edit 1 which I think resolves all of the issues mentioned above: stitching errors in the sky and on far right of the building, as well as a dull sky colour, perspective correction (verticals now vertical). Some of the people's positions have changed (and the woman on the left removed completely) due to using different stitching overlaps, and I thought it benefited from slightly more space on either side and in the sky. Hope you don't mind. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawal withdrawn. Back to voting. Please comment on edit, thanks David --Muhammad(talk) 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Ben. I agree that enc value should be paramount here, but there are zillions of encyclopaedically good pictures here. Enc value is more of an absolutely necessary rather than a sufficient criterium for me. In information theory the information content of a piece of data is essentially meassured by how "surprising" it is (rather than predictable and therefore compressible). This image is not surprising it shows a town hall, big deal. I bet there are literally hundreds of those left over from colonial times in india. I do not learn anything special from this. --Dschwen 13:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I am wrong but if you look at it that way then for a learned person hardly anything will be surprising. I for one, do not find anything surprising in File:CH cow 2.jpg, File:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg or File:Takbir of prayer.jpg. They are all, no doubt, beautiful pictures which strongly illustrate articles. Aesthetic they may be but not surprising. Yet that did not stop us from featuring them due to their strong EV. I am not sure of the exact number but I doubt there are hundreds of these halls, my count gives me around 5 major ones. Nonetheless, I personally found the town hall (not the image) quite interesting having never seen such things in Tanzania. --Muhammad(talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to nominate them for delisting. --Dschwen 16:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You miss my point. If those images were nominated today they would still be good candidates despite not being "surprising" --Muhammad(talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you miss my point. The endresult looks like a better snapshot it has no special appeal. It should at least be something special in the EV department. And in my opinion it isn't. It certailny is a good image, but I absolutely do not think it is among Wikipedia's best work (or even your best work). --Dschwen 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Muhammad here, hardly can a neoclassical building "surprise". --Elekhh (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 I find the lighting optimal for the subject, and the presence of people around the building provides human scale and a valuable example of utilisation. Good work Diliff in fixing all the small technical errors. The composition is also better now with less road surface visible. High EV. --Elekhh (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 per Elekhh --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 --- edit resolves all my original criticisms. Picture has excellent EV and decent resolution; interesting subject. (By the way, EV could be further improved by translating the non-English text in the photograph.) NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will ask a local to help me with that --Muhammad(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says Puttanna Chetty and on the next line Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. --Muhammad(talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and diliff. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why did you remove the woman? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Diliff from above, "Some of the people's positions have changed (and the woman on the left removed completely) due to using different stitching overlaps" --Muhammad(talk) 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore Edit1.jpg —Maedin\^talk 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]