Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arc de Triomphe

Arc de Triomphe



 * Nominate and support. -  T HE P ROMENADER  10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you crop the road out, it should still just squeeze past the size limits (1000x1000). The sky is also very noisy, and I'm sure others will comment on the awkward distortion caused by perspective - the walls seem to push outwards and upwards. Maybe if all these things can be corrected? Stevage 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I agree with Steavage, I think that this photo contains one subtle virtue...that the photographer was able to get such a clear photo of the Place de l'Etoile and the Arc itself. Traffic in that area can be nightmarishly thick, and with the exception of a few cars off the the left (which could be cropped out), the lead-in road and the circle are completely empty.   Good job with the timing of the photo. Nilington 13:21, 23 May, 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - T'was a bit of a chore stopping all the traffic : ) (jk - in fact it was 8am on a Sunday). In looking at the guidelines I tried 'correcting' the perspective; will give it a go again. Or perhaps I'll give it to you 'natural' first - 35mm lens. I do want to leave the street in though. Thanks for the comments; I'll correct and up it again.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear your caches; New version in place. This one has no correction to any perspective at all.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the history of this image? I see it was originally uploaded by someone else (at high res!) then replaced 6 times by very similar images. It's certainly easier to support high res photos than medium - they have more use to the project, and more scope for image manipulation. Anyway, what exactly did you correct in this version? It might be better to upload to a new file each time so we can see the differences. Also, why do you want to leave the street in? Stevage 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first line on my user page mentions that  T HE P ROMENADER  was formerly known as 'Josefu'. I did decide to 'go photoshop' a few times and remove those streetlamps and tweak the curves a bit, but I wasn't about to fill more HD space for such tiny changes. What do you mean by 'the project'? - this image is 1000px wide. The street denotes the space the arch appears in, which, if I can say, is rare to see in images of this subject.   T HE P ROMENADER  15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support My slightly cropped version. I agree the street is important but I don't think you needed quite so much of it. Staxringold 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was thinking horizontal street. I do think your version would be better-suited to an encyclopaedia. Cheers.  T HE P ROMENADER  20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I like both versions, and the angle and position of the Arc de Triomphe makes it stand out compared to the other pictures of the Arc de Triomphe. -- Je suis 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please correct - the left side notably leans to the right, and the right side slightly leans left. Where is the usual brigade of "Oh, it's leaning!" people? :) Stevage 11:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's more than perspective that has to be corrected here - the distortion of the 35mm must be straightened or it will never look straight. Personally I think the natural perspective makes it look 'monumental'-ly big, which it is - and does not bother the natural framing of the image - cropped, it leans, but uncropped, it looks correct. But FWIW I'll give it another ol' photoshoppy try.   T HE P ROMENADER  12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Corrected. lens distortion removed, perspective corrected, slight reframing. Now you can crop it any way you want and it won't look odd. I still prefer the original though...  T HE P ROMENADER  18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose It's quite good but just lacking the "wow factor". --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 09:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. For a monument, hard to get more 'wow' without going into special effects, super-long lenses or night shots - and it's rare to see this one as it is presented here. As far as I understood from the guidelines, the goal here was 'informative quality', not fireworks. Granted some subjects do have this naturally.   T HE P ROMENADER  22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't quite get whats good about picturing a usually very busy place completely devoid of any life. Encyclopedic value would be higher if a more usual traffic situation were chosen. And a higher vantage point. --Dschwen 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain out of respect for the work that went into fixing it. I totally don't get a "wow" factor out of this, and I find ludicrous the suggestion that the Arc de Triomph, one of France's most photographed monuments, is boring and unphotogenic. It's a very adequate photo, in any case. Stevage 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per above two reasons Swollib 08:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - never said the monument was boring, but it sure lacks the complimentary colours our l'il green and yellow snail picture has. I simply don't see the 'encyclopedic value' of traffic - this and photo angle are questions of taste, not quality.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikeo 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)