Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía

El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía

 * Reason:High res, detailed, appropriate angle and composition, lighting at night allows the architecture to stand out.
 * Articles this image appears in:Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom --Muhammad (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I must admit, this is a very beautiful and breathtaking building/picture but its just not significant enough. Still I believe it has some aspects for a FP. Madadude  My Talk Page 20:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who determines what is significant and insignificant, though? In terms of architectural significance, it is actually quite significant IMO. It's a major work by architect Santiago Calatrava who is known as one of the great modern architects among peers such as IM Pei... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support What an amazing looking building... Brilliant quality picture, even showing a clear view of the grand piano in the bottom left window...  There is a blurred person towards the bottom right about to go under the curved bridge, but other than that minor point a pretty flawless pic IMO...  Gazhiley (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Amazing architecture and high quality photograph -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Breathtaking. High quality, great angle, and EV value.  hmwith  τ   13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support meets criteria, great EV  tempo di valse  [☎]  17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Just an excellent image.  Syn  ergy 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support great architecture picture. Question: what focal length was used here? Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure now actually. I could check the originals but for now I'll guess at about 50-70mm. But given that this is a 3x5 segment stitched panorama, the focal length alone isn't enough info. You'd need the horizontal and vertical angle of view too. :-) Given the angles of the walkway and bridge, I'd say there's a horizonal AOV from edge to edge of the frame of about 90 degrees (roughly equivalent to a 28mm lens), but the subject itself has probably an AOV of about 50-60 degrees and is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens (all assuming on a full frame camera). Of course, the projection and distortion is different to a rectilinear single frame photo. It is very hard to judge distortion on architecture like this, but I don't think it's extreme. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive! Kennedy  ( talk ) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support But I get the strong impression that this is looking at the back of the building. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Impressions can be deceiving? On the article page, the image below says it's the front. In any case, this is the more aesthetic end of it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)