Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CN tower fall

CN Tower (Toronto) as seen from its glass floor.

 * Reason:High resolution, attractive composition enhanced by the dangerous position of the viewer with respect to the empty space. Also the lines of the leg of the tower lead the spectator to the center of attention. Natural colors.
 * Articles this image appears in:CN Tower
 * Creator:Franklin


 * Support as nominator --Franklin01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too many technical problems for me, also I dont like the composition but if the glass floor goes all the way around a death drop panorama would be interesting --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  08:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A panorama of that type would not really be possible - you'd end up with a doughnut shaped image, not to mention that it would be tricky to stitch because you're not rotating the camera around the focal point. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A panorama of that kind is indeed possible (rather complicated though) you can compute the position of the camera to move it as if it were rotating around the focal point being this in the center of the tower. But, come one, panoramas are not the only way of making an interesting picture. Also the glass floor of the CN tower is not that large. I'm more interested in knowing those "too many technical problems" that are claimed but not mentioned. Could you please be more detailed on that?  Franklin.vp   16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Grainy, areas out of focus, ghost like tree to the far right of the image, over exposure of certain areas, blurred areas (most likely due to a dirty floor). If i concede that maybe a different image positionally cannot be taken it doesnt change that its generally not that good an image. Well done on questioning everyone though --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those trees are not the subject of the picture and I am thinking now that blurring some more trees (not all though) could make the image even more interesting. The image is not overexposed at all. I can see detail everywhere including what I am guessing you are looking at (the leg and the road). No blurring in the picture is due to the floor at all. Focusing in a far enough point plus the aide of the combination of hand shake and the lens image stabilizer make the little scratches of the glass disappear. It is after all a building of more than 400 meters high it is not clear to me if lens long enough to get such a depth of field are being produced. On the other hand I go quiet from now on. Another user pointed me the difference between a good picture and a FP picture. Sometimes the two categories overlap but not always, e.g. the Eiffel tower candidate. Now I understand the difference and agree that this is definitely not good for a FP.  Franklin.vp   04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting view, but not a view that's particularly educational, and the image quality is lacking. No doubt shooting through such thick glass contributes to that. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the image is to show the length of one the largest buildings in the world. This is done through a picture taken from is glass floor, the obligated point of attention of most of the visitors in this kind of buildings. Again, I'm very interested in knowing what are those ways in which the "image quality is lacking".  Franklin.vp   16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can i just add that if it is intended to show height then this isnt how it is done, you gain no real sense of scale from this image other than its tall, there are lots of tall things. --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A related comment: is there a side that's more interesting than half a plaza and a gravel drive way? --antilivedT 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * dangerous position of the viewer? What danger is there to standing on several inches of bulletproof glass? --Dschwen 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * :) no danger at all. I even jumped hard on the glass to scare a friend while standing there. Let me try again to express myself: The reference to danger in the picture is the same that is used in the architecture of the tower itself by having a glass floor. It is nothing else than the impression of being in danger what makes almost all visitors to stand on the glass ad look down. This controlled "danger" is the same that makes attractive movies, safaris, fear tunnels, mechanic games in amusement park and it is this same sense of controlled danger what it is exploited in the composition of the picture.   Franklin.vp   16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I think the image would look better if it were rotated by 180 degrees. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I giggled with this comment. You know why? The original image is like you said. (NOTE: I didn't declared this edition on the picture because it doesn't change any feature of the subject in any way. The picture could be taken with the camera rotated.) But have you tried rotating it? Do it. A lot of the purpose of the picture is lost in that way. Remember, the picture is about showing the length of the CN tower showing the fall from its glass floor and catching the attention of the viewer by giving him/her the same sense of danger (controlled danger) that the glass floor. This is enhanced by the position of the viewer with respect to the leg of the tower. That uneasiness that you feel while looking at the picture is precisely the intention of the author.  Franklin.vp   16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Awkward, low-EV angle + blown-out sections of white. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, mainly due to low enc composition. MER-C 06:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pictures from the glas floor are difficult because of scratches and dirt on the glas. This is anyway no excuse to vote for excellence. Sure no excellent picture but more educating is this view where you can see more of the concrete structure. – Wladyslaw (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)