Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg

Canary Wharf skyline

 * Reason:It is a well exposed, aesthetic, high resolution panoramic view of an important location and skyline in London.
 * Articles this image appears in:Canary Wharf and Cabot Square
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support nice Mfield (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Terrific quality. ¢rassic ! (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great one. Where are all people? - Darwinek (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to great lengths to avoid them, actually. It took about 45 minutes for me to take a sequence completely free of people! This is an exposure blend so any people in the frame would end up as ghosts as they moved between each exposure. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And how many jobsworth rentacops came and pestered you in that 45 mins? Mfield (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you've obviously photographed Canary Wharf before... dozens. Even had the head of security come out of his office to have a word to me but was evidently satisfied I wasn't a terrorist. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your beard probably led them to suspect you in the first place. :-) Muhammad (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That really ****es me off - I got 'stopped' on the steps of Waterloo station once for taking photos with my 350D, despite the fact that there were hundreds of people with their little point and shoot Sonys around me. I hate having to explain the law to policemen, especially the ones that think having a more expensive, professional camera means you're more likely to blow yourself up. Oh, and Support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, its absolutely ridiculous.. Thing thats different about Canary Wharf though... Its private property. I actually work in Canary Wharf at the moment and wasn't even aware of that. The entire development isn't actually public land. In this case, you don't have the same rights to take photos as you would in public and they have the right to ask/force you to leave. The thing is, they have to temper that right with a bit of flexibility since almost 100,000 people work there, there are hundreds of cafes, restaurants and shops in which (according to the article) half a million people shop each week, there is a tube station, etc. Obviously these things are for the public consumption so it ends up being much like a shopping centre - unless you're up to mischief, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they're too heavy handed with you. Still, what sort of security risk is an SLR camera? A terrorist would use a camera phone or something that he could obscure. Or he'd simply act like all the other P&S tourists. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened to me in Paris. Since rise of terrorism, we are not allowed to take any picture on any train station anymore (but it's easy get an authorization). Silly thing, if I really wanted to spy, I would choose a P&S camera over a giant camera+lens+tripod combination. But on the other hand, policemens only do what they are told to.... Blieusong (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Great Photo! --Mifter (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great quality, and informative. Nautica Shad es  21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Beware  ofdog  21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent shot and congrats on getting it people free! Out of interest what time of day was this taken at? It kinda has the "feel" of early morning (particularly the sky) but with the lights in the windows etc I'm almost thinking late evening? --Fir0002 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite late actually. 9:45pm according to my EXIF. Remember though that we're practically right on the summer solstice here, and London is quite northern. It was early dusk. Exposure blending has lightened the foreground slightly though, without overexposing the sky. If you look at the sky you can see the grey wispy clouds common just after the sun has set and is no longer illuminating them, but is still keeping the sky quite bright. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - and I'm not doubting that it could/was taken at dusk, I was just genuinely unsure and interested to know! --Fir0002 00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support excellent shot Capital photographer (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good picture with encyclopedic value. Muhammad (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great picture, high encyclopedic value.Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a stitching error on the rightmost front facade and the perspective is overcorrected on the left side, making the building lean outwards. --Dschwen 12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair call on the stitching error, I didn't even notice that one. Not sure how it even happened since it was shot on a tripod. Should actually be fairly trivial to mask in photoshop - I'll give it a go as it wouldn't fundimentally alter the image I don't think. I'm not sure that you're right about the overcorrection on the left building though. I see all the vertical lines as vertical (give or take a single pixel anyway). Can you show me where it is not straight? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I can see an ever-so-slight lean on the far edge of the building, but even then its probably only 3 pixels lean from end to end. Given that any perspective-uncorrected photo is going to have 'significantly more lean by definition, I don't see it as a serious problem. I didn't claim it was a mathematically and symmetrically perfect image. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but given the upward angle of the camera I found your perspective correction a bit too much. It looks just irritating to me, as if the buildings were leaning outward. To find that they actually are leaning outward tipped the scale. --Dschwen 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the stitching errors on the foremost part of the ground too ? ;) I also agree with Daniel on the perspective correction. I believe we "naturally correct" perspective so we see two parallel lines as actually diverging. Had you taken the same pic from a higher point, it would have looked good. Maybe it's worth a try not to stick to strict vertical lines and make them converge a little (it's almost free after all). Blieusong (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see tiny stitching errors on the ground, but so small that it almost isn't even a pixel out of alignment, it is more the anti-aliasing is out of alignment! I could mask them too, but I don't think I'll bother. :-) I couldn't take this shot from a higher point unless I had a really big ladder that I could put a tripod on! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand you couldn't take it from higher, but point out that the low point of view doesn't suit perspective correction IMO. I give you coordinates of stitching errors, in case we are not talking about the same (because to me they are more than a pixel misaligned) : (1099, 1682), ..., (1070, 1567). alignement of these errors make me think it's from a separation between the two leftmost shots on the lower row. Same on the right side (but less visible). I also see (1493, 582) and around on the middle tower (I'll stop nitpicking for tonight ;) ). Blieusong (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe its more of an optical illusion caused by the Mercator projection on these specific buildings? Do you see the same effect if you switch to another projection? Mfield (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great picture! --Amckern (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It wouldn't bother me to see this image on the main page, but it's too crafted without the beauty of a large format camera. All I can think while looking at this image is taking out the 4X5 and getting it set up perfectly.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to try. A medium format camera won't really change anything significantly though. You would still need to stitch multiple frames together to get the field of view (about 150-160 degrees in this case I think) and perspective. Also, you would be hassled by security guards even more so with a camera like that, they'd probably assume it was a bomb! And you would still have the problem of people intruding on the shot (unless of course you wanted them there) with the added problem of wasting film when that happens. And finally you wouldn't have the dynamic range ability since you couldn't exposure blend. All of this while the sun is rapidly setting. Sometimes environmental factors affect your ability to take the perfect photo. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And sometimes a photo is great enough that you want that little bit more. Sometimes it's okay without that little bit more, sometimes it's not.  --Blechnic (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We always want more, but my point was sometimes it simply isn't realistic or possible, and that idea of reshooting with a medium format camera would only add to the complications, not solve them. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen, I can't even envisage anyone attempting this shot with medium or large format film. The digital era pretty much made this shot possibleMfield (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my point is, this image leaves me focused on the more I want, rather than what it gives. It's a nice image, but it is, imo, missing some oomph.  It just doesn't do it for me.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful. Durova Charge! 01:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Very nice image. Out of interest, who owns that big building in the centre, between the HSBC and CitiGroup? ← κεηηε∂γ  ( talk ) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is multiple occupancy, lots of tenants on different floors. Its about 250 metres tall compared to 200 with than the other two, but closer to the camera so it looks a lot bigger, proportionally. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)