Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Theatre

Chicago Theatre
Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 13:50:49 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is the main image in a WP:GA. It is high EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Chicago Theatre
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The subject is in shadow while background and foreground elements are in direct sunlight. Not really working. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No opinion at this time. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose HDR artifacting around the people on the street... — raeky  T  14:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those issues, otherwise the photo is basically quite good. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh crud, I remember now someone telling me about this a few weeks (months?) ago, and me promising to fix it... Well, looks like I kind forgot :-). I already put quite a bit of wor into this image to suppress ghosts. And I guess if people are already opposing if for different reasons it is not worth putting more effort into it. The shadow thing is due to the confined location in the State street canyon. It was the very reason I chose to do an exposure-blending shot of the building. There is no way you can make a decent, well-lit daytime shot otherwise. Here is a recent nightshot by the way. However ther still was heavy traffic on State St. at around 11pm. Might have to try even later in the night next time. --Dschwen 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a post scriptum I'd like to add that there is exactly one ghost image of one single person in the entire image. Just in case people just read Raeky's comment and do not bother checking the facts for themselves. --Dschwen 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres at LEAST 4, maybe 5 or 6, look at the people all long the left side of the street, the ones where you only see heads above the subway thing and cars... — raeky  T  21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and those totally spoil the entire picture. Cough... --Dschwen 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments are now starting to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, we have rules for a reason at FPC, if the image has obvious artifacting it's clearly not the best of the best. I suggest you take a step back and not post until you can do so objectively and calmly. — raeky  T  21:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Great resolution and great framing, but its under construction. The construction distracts from the photo, at least for me. Gut Monk (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The construction is actually some minor restoration, which is not unheard of historical buildings. --Dschwen 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why not wait for the restoration to be finished? Gut Monk (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He does not live in Chicago. He lives about 100 miles away.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I went back to the original files and removed the remaining ghosts. Should have done that a while ago. If you still think you are "seeing ghosts" (no pun intended), please use the Image Annotation tool on commons to point them out to me. Thanks. --Dschwen 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Found 3 more and marked them, since you asked. — raeky  T  13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I'll get right on it. Those are in an area I had already worked on, but my masks were transparent at those spots. Good eye, I have to hand you that... --Dschwen 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please recheck, thanks. --Dschwen 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No complains now. Change to Support I don't think the construction is much of an issue, it's very unobtrusive and the HDR solves much of the lighting issues. — raeky  T  14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good use of exposure blending IMO. You can tell that something special has been done re the dynamic range, but it doesn't look obviously fake. Think it could possibly do with a little more contrast (as exposure blended images often do), but otherwise I think it's pretty deserving. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like this image, the technicals are great and the dynamic range really brings it to life that extra little bit. JFitch   (talk)  00:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 4 of 5 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm..., I thought my support was implicit, afte all i put quite a bit more work into the image to address the opposes. If this now fails due to a beurocracy issue it would be pretty disappointing. --Dschwen 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Dschwen should be counted as support too.. that puts it at 5. — raeky  T  17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree, Dschwen to me seems in clear support. JFitch   (talk)  17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So now I'm allowed to interpret consensus and not just vote count? I did think it was odd that you didn't vote, but you have refrained from voting on some nominations of your pictures in the past. I'm a bit comforted by this since Jujutacular apparently thought the nom hadn't garnered enough votes yet either. Anyway, I guess I can fix this. Please try to make your !vote clear in the future. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that. --Dschwen 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)