Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Las Vegas Strip panorama.jpg

Las Vegas Strip Night Panorama[edit]

Reason: Captures the magnitude of the Las Vegas strip
Articles this image appears in: Las Vegas Strip
Creator: Matthew Field
Nominator: Mfield

Support — Mfield 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very cool picture, but I feel like I'm seeing double on the far right side, there seem to be some doubles of buildings. Also, in the center there are two bright green spots in the sky which I can't account for. The are a couple other lines which I can't understand where they're coming from. I don't know whether these are due to stitching errors or what, but I wonder whether it's possible to fix them? Or at least minimize the doubling effect on the right side? It's an awesome picture in any case, just thought I'd ask though. Mak (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are not stitching errors, they are actually reflections. The only way to get this shot is to take it from inside the Bellagio which necessitates taking it from behind a non opening dual paned window. This led to some slight reflections at the right hand end where the camera was at a very oblique angle to the glass for the extreme right shots. For photographic purposes I would crop the panorama down to remove any reflections but I decided to leave the shot with them in as for encyclopedia purposes I felt it was more useful to include the Project City Center construction on the right. Mfield 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, then the other random lights are probably also reflections, and are probably pretty inevitable. Support. Mak (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. -Bluedog423^Talk 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Great scene, but I'm afraid the reflections everywhere really kill it. Has anyone noticed a pair of blue lights, repeated about ten times across the whole length of the sky? Mrug ² 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, I see them - hot pixels, I'll remove them and replace it Mfield 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed hot pixels and some reflections and replaced image. Mfield 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good panorama -Nelro
Support New original - Great panorama sans the hot pixels. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~. Several minor issues. The color balance might be a tiny bit off towards too much yellow. I'd like to see the pano extended at the bottom. And there is that duplication effect from shooting through glass. Everything is doubled. The New York casino suddenly is the New York, New York Casino. --Dschwen 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I feel I should start spreading the news that it is indeed the New York-New York Hotel & Casino--Melburnian 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is of course how it is - thanks for pointing that out to people :) Mfield 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm yeah, as my edit summary stated, it probably was a little too subtle ;-) --Dschwen 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an odd halo effect around the blue dome near the center.. also there are still several hot pixels. Other than that, absolute rubbish just like the rest of your photos ;) heheh drumguy8800 C T 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support Edit 1~~ - ~~But I still see hot pixels. And there are a few bleu dots in the sky. They look wierd. What are they?~~ --Arad 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Edit 1 - removed all hot pixels and the halo around the bleu dome and Eiffel tower of Paris Hotel. --Arad 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support new Original - Good job really. Amazing photo now. The edit 2 isn't much different. So I support both. --Arad 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 - I really like it now. Well done, Arad. Mrug ² 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. You've got a really nice user page too ;-) --Arad 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both I know it might seem odd for me to be opposing a picture I took, but I've just looked at it properly and realized how embarassingly badly the verticals are aligned and what a mess I made of something in the PP process which made it hazy. I am rebuilding it from scratch right now and I will replace my original so I am opposing both edits in the mean time. Mfield 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit 1 - have replaced original with complete restitch, now is vastly improved over all previous edits. Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - new version of original Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit1, weak support new original. Great job on the verticals, and I very much prefer the new version in terms of contrast/exposure correction. --Dschwen 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks as if the new origenal and edit arn't being voted on. Should it be renominated or something so that conscensus can form. -Fcb981 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit 1" or "New original"? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 2 ("new original") This one is far better than the first two. -- Sturgeonman 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite follow this "new original" stuff, so I'll just support which ever one is agreed upon by the community. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get us much of anywhere…--Here T oHelp 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support New Original --Arad 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 Ill support my oun edit as it now has some other support and I think it balances the image in terms of brightness better than the new original. -Fcb981 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support New Original Fcb981's edit is good, but it leaves an awful green glare at the left side of the MGM Grand building. Arad's edit leaves the image kind of muddy (looks like smog) with washed out colors, and it isn't as clear. --Mad Max 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Las_Vegas_Strip_panorama.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]