Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Île de la Cité

Île de la Cité
I'm a bit hesitant to nominate this one given the recent disagreements regarding self nominations. I don't think there was any clear consensus there, though, so I'll continue to put images up every now and then for your consideration. :) This image contributes to Notre Dame de Paris and Île de la Cité. It is high resolution, of a pleasing composition and does a pretty good job of showing the shape of the island, notwithstanding a diagram or map, I suppose. Its a 4 segment panorama taken by myself with my Canon 5D and trusty 24-105mm f/4L IS. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and Abstain. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A good, sharp, and high resolution image. I would prefer to see it on a sunnier day, though. -- Tewy  03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak support edit - full support for a version with slightly higher contrast - thr weather looks hazy and rather ugly here.--Janke | Talk 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How does the edit look? It doesn't look hazy to me, and the clouds are atmospheric imho ;), but I agree that it could have been a little brighter. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit - sharp, high quality, encyclopaedic image of an interesting subject - unusual angle, too. Even with the weather, I really like this photo, and nice composition with the bateau mouche on the left. Stevage 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I love the angle and the composition. It would be nice if we could get the same with better weather! InvictaHOG 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Most excellent in every respect - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It's very good. And it's good quality so i vote for it.
 * Oppose Sorry, but this just does not do the subject any favours. It is an unappealing photo of something which has millions of photos of it. There must be a pic out there with better weather, without the bateau mouche (which is too far away to get detail but too close to ignore) and without the sign in the foreground. It's just not a pretty picture. Witt y lama 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Plus i find the picture a little bit too busy (with the people here and there)--Vircabutar 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well composed, good exposure. Encyclopedic content. HighInBC 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Techinically great as usual, but for a subject inherently beautiful like the Notre Dame, an extra element is needed in the photograph to make it special. Particularly since this is a building and going nowhere fast, it would have made a huge difference to have had it in better lighting. Even though Image:Notre-Dame-night.jpg has perhaps worse composition it has better atmospheric lighting. Just as a side issue, I wonder if you could consider uploading all your future images in a more web compatible format - it's nice to have all the dashes etc in the right place but it does play merry hell with the address bar, not to mention the fact that often you are unable to "flashgot" the image to a download manager - something very handy when downloading your super high res images! --Fir0002 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While sharpness is excellent, lighting is poor. Grey sky, grey buldings - not pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not pleasing to the eye, I think. The almost cut off spire somehow ruins the composition for me. --KFP 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)