Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Colosseum at dusk

The Colosseum in Rome at dusk

 * Reason:This is a high quality and perspective corrected panoramic view of the Colosseum of Rome. While it isn't quite postcard perfect, this view at dusk provides the ideal lighting to see the three dimensional structure of the ruins.
 * Articles this image appears in:Rome, Colosseum, Roman architecture, Amphitheatre and New Seven Wonders of the World.
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty amazing to me, well done Diliff (as always). Terri G 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, not that it will need much :) Great work, timely capture, apart from the blurred fg figures and the UFO (exterme left)! Seems a tiny bit oversharpened on the high contrast margins... heheh, I love to nit-pick shots like this. Nice one. mikaultalk 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks great. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Very pleasing to the eye, and is important to articles! ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Squisito! - Non solo deluso. --YFB ¿  16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What is that line and two dots (or UFO, as Mikaul called it) on the left? J     Are you green? 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it a bird, is it a plane? It's a plane, I reckon: one constant light, one flashing light, one second exposure. Or something equally down-to-earth ;o) mikaultalk 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect Mikaul is correct. You know what I think find interesting/amusing... You could safely remove the line from the image without violating the Wikipedia Photojournalism Code of Conduct because the plane doesn't actually show up in other overlapping frames. Therefore it wouldn't be manipulating reality to remove it (instead you'd merely be messing with quantum mechanics? Maybe both states exist until you observe or manipulate it....?!). In any case, I can't see how it is a significant issue in the photo. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious... Since it was actually there, I support. J     Are you green? 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, despite "UFOs" and blurry tourists.--HereToHelp 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, perfect.--Svetovid 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I like. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Misa likes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs)
 * Support because of the four legged women where the outer wall ends at the ground. No, no, that's not what I meant.  ;-) Support in spite of the blurry tourists. I looked over at Wikimedia, and this is by far the best one (I'm sure Diliff checked to make sure it was needed before he took it, but I agree, this really high res evening shot was needed).  Enuja 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen many good pictures of the Colosseum, but this one outranks them all. --Krm500 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Diliff mentioned something about a rome trip. I expect we'll see a few more featured pics coming out of that part of the world. -Fcb981 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, amazing image and the anomalies with the people really don't detract from its ability to represent the subject. gren グレン 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, why doesn't anyone complain about the blown higlights? There are at least two half-inch sized overexposed patches in this slightly oversized image - I had to chop a hole in the side of my monitor to let the non-viewable part of the image load! And that :| in the sky just makes you frown... Seriously, I don't think anyone could do better. Big support for a great image! --Janke | Talk 07:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I love it as much as the next guy and the people don't distract me, but the blocky anomolies in the sky do. Perhaps someone can slightly downsample it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, what blocky anomalies? Maybe you could crop an enlarge them so we can see? I just had a scan through the sky and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a crop with a heavy contrast boost. J     Are you green? 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Unless you're talking about the plane discussed earlier? Downsampling wouldn't help that. Diliff | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some sensor dust spots in the sky. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? J     Are you green? 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see them. They're very slightly darker 'blobs' in the sky - barely noticeable but there. That said, they're not blocky anomalies, and I don't see any posterisation in the sky that MgM may have been referring to. I'll go ahead and remove the dusk blobs and the plane streak on the left side of the frame but it is such a minor change I'll overwrite the original rather than upload an edit. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that he's refering to the artifacts that are only viewable when I view my LCD from an angle. -Fcb981 01:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Mgm is talking about some slight posterisation in the sky, which appears blocky in some places. J     Are you green? 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears my comment wasn't all that clear. I'm not technical with pictures, I think they're called jpeg artefects, but posterization sounds like the same. It has nothing to do with viewing an LCD screen from the side. I don't have LCD and I'm looking straight on. - Mgm|(talk) 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is posterisation, I think, which is much more likely to be the result of colour correction in post-processing than jpeg compression. It's really common in subtle tone graduations, even at high resolution - except that, at the sort of high resolution you're viewing here, you will only see it if you're viewing the image at an unreasonably large magnification. For all practical purposes, including high-quality print, these are invisible artifacts. mikaultalk 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bellissima! My Support is offered Booksworm Talk to me! 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, not that it seems necessary. One of Wikipedia's finest. Theonlyedge 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- Blieusong 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't get me wrong, it's a technically very impressive picture, but for encyclopedic value, I think that twilight is not the best time of day for a photo like this.  There is not enough contrast between the sky and the building.  A daylight photo or later-night photo would be better for this, in my opinion.  A separate matter, not related to my vote, is that perhaps the description in the caption could be changed from "severely ruined condition" to just "ruined condition" -- given the age and the size of the building, it seems to me to be in remarkably good shape (but then I'm not an archaelogist). Spebudmak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support fantastic photo as usual. It would be nice if the sensor dust spots in the sky were cleaned however. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — The photo offers fantastic contrast between the white Colosseum and the dark blue sky. Photographs of the Colosseum tend to be rather dull most of the time, but this one definitely stands out. The focus also seems to be sharp, to the extend I can read the notice boards. The moving people, cars, and airplane are only noticeable in the full resolution picture, and takes nothing away of the subject. I also support the original photograph. (This is my first Featured picture review, I do not go to the trouble often. This one is the exception to the rule.) - G.A.S 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — One of the best online photo of the Colosseum, good job Diliff! - tlaw.eu
 * Question. This is a very attractive picture, but it troubles me a little in that the Colosseum seems far more 'curved' than any other picture I've ever seen of it. Or to put it another way, the height to width ratio seems wrong. Now I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of the panorama creation method you've used, or whether you've taken the building from a different angle than usual, say at the pointy end or something. Wonder if you can clarify? --jjron 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify. Basically I took this photo from close up as it provided the most direct view. If I had moved further back then the curvature toward the top would have been less pronounced but would have resulted in more aesthetically unpleasing elements in the foreground. This photo is the closest comparable image on Commons and has very similar curvature, but the vertical lines have not been corrected for perspective. Yes there might be some slightly curvier lines at the top due to this perspective correction but I don't think they're excessive. As you mentioned, the colosseum is oval shaped and yes I believe you are looking at the pointier end of it but I think you would find this is the most common view of the colosseum. Other views and angles would have resulted in different positives and negatives but I felt this was the best compromise. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably more the shape I was thinking of [[Image:ColosseumAtEvening.jpg|40px]]. It shows the almost identical 'pointy' part of the Colosseum, but is taken from further back. The maximum height to width ratio in this one is about 0.575, in yours it's 0.656. I think the main cause of this difference is that you've taken the picture from so close to the building, thus accentuating the height. I guess most photos/videos/drawings must be done from further back, thus putting that image in my mind. With these considerations in mind, I will Support. --jjron 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 10:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)