Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop - April 2009.jpg

File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop - April 2009.jpg

 * Reason:High resolution and detailed (7281 × 2096px), aesthetically pleasing and dusk lighting allows the shopping centre to stand out amongst the surrounding chalk cliffs. This image is derived from 63 frames, as per the image page description)
 * Articles this image appears in:Bluewater (shopping centre)
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support A very well composed image.  Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support I can see this as a potential Featured Picture of the Year nominee.-- mcshadypl T C  17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The part of the picture I prefer is the foreground, including the water, trees and grass. I don't like as much some sections of the building which seem overexposed and with little contrast. A good example is the parking lot at left and most of the windows and openings to the outside. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks very good. Could we have a more compressed smaller sized complimentary version as well? --Muhammad (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go :-). Downsampled to 5000px wide and higher compression so it's now 2.6mb. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the license message is no longer standard GFDL or CC-by-sa GerardM (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain that one? My 'license message' essentially re-states the main terms of the license in a way that laymen should be able to understand better. It isn't intended to replace the GFDL / CC-BY-SA license. Also, that's a pretty poor reason to oppose. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a valid reason to oppose; the image is clearly licensed properly under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. On a completely unrelated note, I thought this looked like an artist rendering, which I think gives this a very cool look. And I wonder why I've never seen a park next to a mall here in the States before? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - nice image — Chris!  c t 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Very detailed (nice fountain down there) and good quality. One of the finest panos --Muhammad (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful panorama -- awesome example of blue hour. Maxis ftw (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Wladyslaw (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the pond in the foreground part of the shopping center facility? If not, I'd suggest cropping some out for the sake of EV.   Spikebrennan (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think there are clearly defined boundaries. The shopping centre exists at the bottom of an old chalk quarry and the pond is within the quarry boundaries, but whether it is literally owned by the shopping centre or managed by the local council or something, I don't know. I can't imagine anyone would go to the park/pond without also visiting the shopping centre. The complex is inextricably linked with the geography, really. And I think it gives the shopping centre a bit of context and stops the panorama's aspect ratio being too high. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A propos of nothing, here in the United States we use the term "shopping center" to refer to a different kind of structure-- such as a larger example of this, or the kind of stores depicted here: . The facility in your picture is what we'd call a "mall".  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that (as per here), but the terminology used should be geographically local. :-) The examples you give would be called retail parks here. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom --Fir0002 05:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support What is your record as far as number of images in a composite? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's the panorama of Hong Kong with 78 (26x3 exposures). This one is probably the highest res with 53 individual segments (no exposure blending). Honourable mentions are the London 360 pano with 51 and St Peter's Square with 30. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I wonder why you are throwing around these numbers? How are the 63 frames remotely relevant to this candidate? Conservatively I'd expect the result (assuming 50% overlap in either direction) to have approximately 63 Megapixel. The candidate has a "meager" 14. Should we give out extra points for effort even if the project does not get to use the results? --Dschwen 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The only time I ever see you around nowdays is when you complain about something or other. I was only throwing them around because I was asked. There are pretty good reasons why this one 'only' has 14 megapixels. And I think you'll find that the project does get to use the results of 63 frames. This is an exposure blended image. If I hadn't taken this many frames, a lot more of the photo would either be too dark or too bright. As for the theorical full resolution, I downsampled it as wasn't particularly sharp at full size (I had to climb a fence and stand in the bushes at the edge of a cliff to get this - even with the tripod, it wasn't rock-solid on the soft ground, so I think there was some small camera movement) and there wasn't any real benefit to increasing the resolution/file size without a tangible increase in detail. Still, I don't think it matters what I could have uploaded. Judge the image on its merits. I wasn't asking anyone to give extra points for effort. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no need to yell. 50% overlap means you can use 20%of the area per frame, 3 exposure levels mean another reduction by 1/3, totaling to 1/12 of the raw material (which is 63*12MP). Anyhow, the camera shake and difficult conditions are a pretty good reason for downsampling, and I should not take my frustration about certain recent licensing incidences out on you, as I see you are still one of the good guys (CC-BY-SA-3.0). --Dschwen 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Wow. What a visually stunning picture! Almost makes me want to go there and spend the money i don't have! hehe lovely colours, although is that a "hoodie" i see in the bottom left of the picture?! reminds me of the hoodies you see in GTA San Andreas... Yes I'm a geek... Gazhiley (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 08:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)