Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Leeds Castle, Kent, England 1 - May 09.jpg

File:Leeds Castle, Kent, England 1 - May 09.jpg

 * Reason:Very high res, a wide, complete and detailed view of the castle from an aesthetic angle showing the moat structure.
 * Articles this image appears in:Leeds Castle
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Have you seen any swans there?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did see quite a few swans, but only one on the moat itself - most were in other parts of the castle grounds. Lots of geese and ducks too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Good EV, high quality, good composition. Is it a little overexposed on the left part of the castle? Not sure, but the 'brick' colour there looks a bit bright. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I think it's brighter because it's receiving reflected light from the moat, whereas the wall, made from different (less reflective?) stone stops that reflection on the right side. Whether it's overexposed or just rather bright is debatable, though I admit it's borderline. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could selectively burn the left side of the castle to darken it a little if it's a problem for others, but I don't personally find it objectionable. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find it particularly objectionable either (or I wouldn't have supported straight off), but a bit of a burn in mightn't hurt. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I keep getting the impression that this is tilted clockwise a bit. But the building verticals are all over the place (to be expected with age). Also, is that a black swan about a third of the way from the left? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't be sure of the tilt any more than you can. I corrected for the verticals as they tend to be a little more reliable and consistent from left to right. Certainly if there is an overall image tilt, it's very slight and not noticable without pixel-peeping (optical illusions and impressions aside). Yes, I think it's a swan. Either my eyes are playing tricks on me or it looks like it's mounting a little black shaggy dog. Not likely, so I'm not sure what that is. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it's just a swan swimming towards us that is in the shadows. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * support – Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I think I do detect a bit of tilt. And perhaps a bit of overexposure like Jjron mentioned. But I still think this is an excellent picture, strong in both EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the tilt you're seeing is due to perspective (you're not looking at the building from exactly straight on, and due to wide view, that angle actually changes slightly from left to right too). Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm usually one of the first to jump on perceived tilts, but I don't think there's any here. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Tilts are evident on all the buildings this way or that. No one can pin it down though so might as well. Pity we don't have a reference non composite image from the same spot. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There would be tilts on various parts of the building regardless of how perfectly it was straightened or corrected though. You can only correct the perspective to avoid tilts if there was a single face, or if the camera is at the same height as the top of the building (so that there is no perspective at all, but even this wouldn't work as the building height varies across the scene so you could only ever keep it straight for one particular height). I'm not sure how this could really be improved to be honest. I know you supported so it's a moot issue, but wanted to bring it up anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A reference non-composite (with a good lens) would let you figure out how off all the verticals should be for sure. You'd probably have to compensate with PTLens or something though to be really sure. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 Zoo Fari  00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)