Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Esenboğa International Airport

Esenboğa International Airport

 * Reason:Image in my mind seems to meet the featured picture criteria. Good technical standard, high resolution and seems to demonstate the subject very well. Above all, the picture just seems very impressive. Admittedly my eye is untrained for these things but the different range of colours on show really seem to make the subject stand out. --A.Garnet 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Turkey, Esenboğa International Airport
 * Creator: User:Enderender Cheyrek


 * Support as nominator &mdash; A.Garnet 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment .67 MP is not that high res and is absolutely tiny for a panorama. J    Are you green?  18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Great picture, but very small. Can we get it any larger? Contact the photographer or suchlike? Adam Cuerden talk 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks too small. 8thstar 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support on getting a somewhat larger version. May as well vote this way, it'll save tracking us down later. Adam Cuerden talk 11:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose too small, over sharpened, columns off verticle, lots of fffff highlights and 000000 shadows. Debivort 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far, hopefully Enderender will get back to us if he has a better version of the picture. --A.Garnet 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support Much better, but columns on the left are still a bit off vertical, and there are some minor jpeg artifacts. Debivort 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First I should thank Debivort because I really haven't noticed the column thing. I fixed it. But as for the noise, unfortunately there's not much I can do. I shot this photo(s -it's actually a 7-piece panorama) literally hand-held with a small canon elph (ixus). Hand-held meaning no special lighting, therefore high iso and short exposure time. Sorry for that, this is the best noise reduction can do. --Cheyrek 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, unless a larger image could be obtained. For now the resolution is a bit too low. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Edited version is 2500px wide, less sharp and less bright. BTW, thank you for the nomination.--Cheyrek 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The new version seems to have address the concerns raised, though the black border should disappear. I speedied the original as redundant. Relisting to get a few more opinions on the revised version. MER-C 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Isn't Cheyrek the creator of this image, not Enderender, or are they the same person? --jjron 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I am both the creator and the uploader. Originally Enderender had uploaded it but after the nomination I uploaded a bigger and re-tuned file, old one is deleted by MER-C. I guess the creator line above stayed same, I didn't want to touch it since I'm not the nominator. --Cheyrek 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I've changed it up top. --jjron 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What's the guidelines for the resolution of a panorama, anyway? I don't know if I'm looking at the right image (one of the links is red right now), but it doesn't seem large enough. Also, some of the spotlights are blown out, I think. vlad§inger  tlk  16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The red link has been deleted as per MER-C's note. The resolution guideline onlt specifies 1000 px in one dimension, but I personally would rarely stand for a panorama that's less than 1 or 2 MP - after all, the purpose of a panorama is to capture more information by photographing a larger-than-normal area, and what's the purpose of that if you are going to delete all that extra info? J      Are you green?  20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, we have to follow the rules as they stand, which is 1000px in one dimension. Having said that, as a bit of a rule of thumb, I usually upload panos at around 1000px in the shorter dimension. --jjron 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Landscape panoramas are one thing, but using a strong wide-angle lens for an interior shot like this causes an amount of distortion that I find upsetting. Bending the strong straight lines originally present in the design does nothing for the aesthetics. Being thus unrepresentative, I find it loses in encyclopaedic value. 129.215.191.74 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry but who said "a strong wide-angle lens" is used? It's a standard 35-100mm equivalent camera. 7 photos were taken from a "person's POV" (which is about 50mm) and stitched by a panorama software (autostitch). BTW I'm not defending the photo or anything, I'm not even the nominator. I just wanted to make a correction. --Cheyrek 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please log in to vote. J      Are you green?  16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)