Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg

File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg

 * Reason:High resolution, useful to both articles, and shows an interesting and important segment of the River Thames flowing through London on a clear, bright day.
 * Articles this image appears in:London and River Thames
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support very nice -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The Big Ben clock tower gives the time at 10 minutes to 8 O'clock. The left shows a very good image of the London Eye. The first bridge is Westminster Bridge. Although, most of it is water and sky and there are a lot of trees, it is interesting to inspect the photograph at maximum resolution and see the details of London. I see what a difference a good camera makes. Some of the pictures on commons are from the top of the London Eye and some of them show a very good view without too many buildings being obscured by trees. I have changed my mind about this image again - I think that the detail and high resolution should win it an FP rating. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Lovely resolution and clear. Lighting and composition less good.  Bottom 20% is brown water--why not lower the horizon per the rule of thirds and get more of that sky?--why not shoot early morning or late afternoon when the light is more interesting?  The only landmark that takes up a significant portion of the image is the London Eye.  You do a lot of great work, Diliff, so could you explain for an ignorant Yank who's never been to your city how it is necessary to supplement several existing featured pictures with this panorama?  Durova  371 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in simple terms, I would say that this image isn't intended to illustrate either the Houses of Parliament or the London Eye, it illustrates the River Thames as it flows through London. It just so happens that this particular scene incorporates some subjects that have their own FPs. I agree that it doesn't really conform to the rule of thirds but given the scene and the intended EV, to crop the water further would only fuel opposition on the basis that the subject is a such small proportion of the frame. And obviously the top can't be cropped too much or it'd lose the Eye, so the framing options are a bit limited. If it isn't to your tastes, that's fine, but I wanted to explain why it is the way it is. As for taking it early morning or late afternoon, this particular image was actually shot at 7:50am, but at that time of year a sunrise shot would have required me to take it at about 4:50am! I suppose at this time of year it might be more practical to get a sunrise photo when it rises at about 7:45am - assuming I could actually strike it lucky with a clear, sunny morning at this time of year! I took a similar photo in the evening (8:10pm) which you might prefer, but it's not used in any articles. In terms of lighting, because it's a fairly wide panorama, one side will inevitably be lit while the other is in shadow. And because we're looking south in this image, we'll never really get the sun shining directly behind either in the morning or the evening (or indeed at any time of day). As for the need for this FP given we have another FP showing the River Thames, they're obviously fairly different images, showing different sections of the river, and on the River Thames talk page, a request was made to take a quality daylight shot of this part of the river, as it was considered to be the 'premier' section of the river in London. So there are a lot of factors working against this being a perfect shot. Hope this answers your questions anyway. No need to butter me up. You know what the sure-fire cure for Ignorant Yankitis is, though? Visit London for yourself! ;-) (no disrespect intended!) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For an image of the River Thames, I think it is unfortunate that only one bridge is seen well, and the second bridge is obscured by the first. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's difficult to show more than one bridge from at-bridge-level. They tend to all be the same height and overlap. They're also spaced fairly wide so you'd have to be pretty high to get a good view of more than one of them. The London Eye is one of the few accessible vantage points, but then you're not able to get great photos as there are significant reflections from the glass. I don't mean to be cynical, but it's easy to put together a wishlist, but a little more difficult to create an image that delivers it! I've lost count of the number of times I wished I had access to a helicopter for good aerial vantage points. In the real world, we're unfortunately limited to where we can stand and point a camera from. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There a are literally thousands of images taken from the London Eye on flickr, but there are some reflections. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I've been up there too, and I wouldn't say any of the photos taken were of particularly high quality. It's really just not possible when shooting through glass. Anyway, as much as I welcome discussion of this image, all the galleries are getting a bit messy on the page! Perhaps you could just link to them instead? ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From London Eye - not featured images
 * File:River Thames and Westminster Bridge, London-17Aug2009.jpg
 * File:Palace of Westminster and Westminster Bridge, London-7July2007.jpg
 * File:Charing_Cross_railway_station_and_Hungerford_Bridge,_London-22April2009.jpg
 * Okay, weak support per explanation. Photographic opportunities over the water are necessarily limited.  This does give a sense not conveyed in any other FP of the relative geographies.  Would really prefer a delist/replace in spring or summer, perhaps from a weather deck if they run river cruises?  Durova  371 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Durova . Low EV for London and not Wikipedia's best (see gallery examples below). Insufficient EV for Thames as well (shows a very short section of the river within London, with only one bridge and few buildings visible in the distance; at standard wiki article size of 300px not much is recognisable). Elekhh (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Might actually fit in Geography of London better than the two nominated articles. Elekhh (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anticipated support for delist, per Durova above (but for EV reason). :) Elekhh (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggested vantage point: File:River.thames.viewfromtowerbridge.london.arp.jpg
 * Suggested vantage point2:File:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg
 * Current & Better FP: File:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg
 * A bit confused by your comments (and Durova's for that matter). This photo was taken in early summer so I'm not sure why you would support the delisting of this image for a different one taken in spring/summer. Besides, you opposed on the basis that it had low EV, not because of the time of year, so I'm not sure why you would say that. I quite like the Thames sunset panorama of mine, and I think it has value in the article, but I would say that it has slightly lower EV for the River Thames article than this one, given the time of day and the relatively monochromatic lighting of it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have been more explicit (see added comments in brackets above). My primary reason for opposing was the lack of EV for the river and especially London, resulting from the chosen vantage point and angle. I should have added also that the technical quality of the image is very high and pleasing. However I think an FP should be recognisable at standard article size (i.e. 250-300px). Elaborating on the EV, the image doesn't show much: is ca. 90% blue pixels (sky and water) and 10% the two triangles on the sides (of which again half are the trees). It's true that some major landmarks of London appear in the image, but only a few, and are only recognisable after significant zoom-in. I think a higher vantage point could reveal much more. In terms of composition I find it problematic that it lacks centrality. There is nothing to fix the eye on and generates confusion as to where to look... Elekhh (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I can recall making the exact same criticism of another of his landscapes. I think maybe they are meant to be enjoyed with a glass of wine....  Fletcher (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. A high quality image that does a good job of illustrating the river as the river. The existing FP of the river is much better suited to illustrate Rayleigh scattering than the river. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Personally I like it shows relative position of those icons of London.  franklin.vp   02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Durova. I knew I was missing these great panoramas.  Agree the composition and midday lighting are a little plain, but the EV and technical quality are there.  Also note the FP criteria only state the image must be among Wikipedia's best, not necessarily the best, so if you favor a different image that doesn't necessarily rule out FP for this one. Fletcher (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the record though, and as mentioned in my reply to Durova above, it was shot at 7:50am, so it doesn't have midday lighting. You can see that the left side is in shadow. It doesn't have the warm hues that you might expect - not sure why exactly, but it was probably slightly too late in the morning (the sun rose at 4:50am the day this photo was taken). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Fletcher/Durova... Gazhiley (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on compositional grounds. The contrails look like scratches, and having one pass across the Eye just ruins this one for me. Plus I agree there's a little too much distracting open water in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Too much open brown water, the London Eye is too far to the left edge... Overall the composition is not great. TheCoffee (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just clarify something here? This image illustrates the Thames river. It doesn't illustrate the London Eye. If the water is brown, that's just reality. I don't see how it's distracting or that there is too much of it when it's supposed to be the focus. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Good technical quality. Good EV showing the size of the River Thames and where the Houses of Parliament and London Eye are located on it; it's also one of our best pictures of the Victoria Embankment and of Westminster Bridge from the perspective of the upstream approach by water. I like the composition and would not support a crop: the large expanse of water is pleasing, and the position of the boat on the right nicely balances the Eye on the left and creates a pleasingly 'deep' perspective. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)