Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Times Square 1-2.JPG

Times Square

 * Reason:Nighttime photo of the northern section of Times Square featuring billboard ads for various Broadway shows. Technically sound, though distortion correction was neglected purposefully (it will have too much of a negative impact on the photo, which looks fine without it anyway). Shows off the lighting, advertising, and people watching that Times Square offers and even includes a NYC Taxicab. Exposure time offers a bit of an aesthetic flare as well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Times Square, New York City, United States, Seventh Avenue (Manhattan), 47th Street (Manhattan)
 * Creator: upstate NYer 

&#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- upstate NYer  03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It's nice to see all the clean up happening in Peer Review. I am going to have to remember that nice little corner of Wikipedia from now on. Good work all around.  Nezzadar   ☎   04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per myself in PPR. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. High EV in the 7th, 47th Ave and Times Square articles. Nice splash of colour. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Mostlyharmless. I've just added the image to the Billboard article. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. It certainly has plenty of EV given the article's it is being used in, and the quality is actually pretty good. Sharp from corner to corner, detailed, and although it's a shame that the top of the 'South Pacific' billboard is out of the frame, I think this is a good photo. Times Square is pretty difficult to shoot well. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but I think the colors look too artificial to me and the composition is not so great due to the cut of the cab.--Caspian blue 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the colours are artificial looking. You seem very sensitive to colours (I recall you opposing an image or two of mine for similar reasons). What you might need to consider is that there are so many different light sources interacting in the scene that it is not possible to correct the white balance for any one of them locally. Just a thought, anyway, but colour is such a complex and subjective thing that I don't think it is fair to oppose for that reason. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain the problem in three words: "It's New York." A higher concentration of colors and lights exists in few other places.  Nezzadar   ☎   13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (To, Diliff) Likewise, I'm not convinced of your analysis. Perhaps, you're very sensitive to my past oppose votes to your images which has nothing to do with my opinion here. I appreciate any efforts made by contributors here, but I don't think this is a best shot that we could get for Time square. Time square images are published zillion times, and I'm well aware of the lighting differing to places. However, as you see, the color of the Phantom of the Opera's billboard is not correct and overall the level of the image is a bit overexposed. The color looks artificial because of the blue and violet tones. I stand by my opinion so do you.--Caspian blue 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not sensitive to your past oppose votes, just aware of them. As I said before, you cannot completely correct the colour in a scene as complex as this. If you correct the balance for one light source, you will make other light sources incorrect. All you can do is set the colour balance for the entire scene that is roughtly correct with deviations from this for warm and cool light sources (incandescent downlighting, and fluorescent/neon lighting respectively). In fact, as an aside, not all light sources should be corrected for. As I've mentioned in past discussions on this topic, it is not usually a good idea to correct for the warm light of a sunset because warm colours are what your eyes see. You're being far too simplistic about the issue of colour. There are arguments where it is more than just one opinion vs another and I think this is one of them: There are fundamentals to colour analysis and correction that you seem to be overlooking. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are arguments where it is more than just one opinion vs another, don't you think this assertion is too early to the FPC that just been here less 12 hours? Still, I'm not convinced of your "so-called" analysis. Color can be changed by moderating levels, and giving or reducing specific tones. --Caspian blue 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The objectivity and validity of an argument has nothing to do with how long a nomination has been running. Colour can be changed by altering specific tones locally, but then you are not just changing the colour balance, you are actually altering the interrelatedness of the colour in the scene. Anyway, if it is trivial to do what you've described, then perhaps you could offer an edit with improved colour balance. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anticipation is subjective, and you're resorting to fallacies in believing that your opinions are superior, objective and valid while I'm not. Please do not continue such unpleasant behaviors crossing over ad hominem. You also totally forget about my other opposing reason due to the composition, and I don't feel obliged to edit the picture for your satisfaction.--Caspian blue 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be for my satisfaction since I think the image is perfectly fine as it is. It's easy to throw criticism of an image around, after all, but since you felt the colour was 'artificial' or incorrect, I thought you might want to try to improve it? I didn't forget about your other reason for opposing, I accepted it as valid which is why I didn't comment on it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected colors of some pictures that nominated for FP on Commons, but heard of complaints like "stealing thunder". The composition is not good, so I don't think even if I correct the color, I would not support for the reason.--Caspian blue 15:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your support for it is beside the point. If you think you could improve it, you should try. It will be up to the voters to decide which version they prefer. I don't think anyone has ever complained about stealing thunder here and it is quite common to upload edits with potential improvements. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My possible support for the nom is a motivation or discouragement whether I may or may not edit the image. You're really persistent. Whether you don't like my opinion or not, I don' care given that your persistence can't stop you badgering me.--Caspian blue 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please all get along here. This is a small group of friends and coworkers, let's not fight like this. It hurts me...  Nezzadar   ☎   18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as PPR --Muhammad (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Great capture of NYC, good picture quality, and good EV in the articles. And pretty, :-)   Mae din \talk 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I love this picture, and I do want to support, but am I the only one feeling a little concerned about copyright issues? What we basically have here is several high resolution shots of broadway posters, a distorted street below... J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no single billboard is the focus of the image, I think we're OK per De minimis requirements. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're ok to use the billboards in context, but we wouldn't be ok to crop it down? Perhaps I need to learn more about de minimis... J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kaldari, definitely De minimis, they are a vital part of the scene as a collection, but incidental to the scene as individual billboards. And yes, cropping too much might make one billboard a significant part of the scene and cross the line. Also, distortion is to be expected in this case given the scene. Better to have a wide angle view with some distortion than a random sliver of the scene with minimal distortion IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I like the distortion, I was just trying to deconstruct the image to demonstrate how it could be viewed. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Composition could be better (e.g. cut off taxi in the corner). Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm happy to accept that this is legit copyright-wise unless someone else wants to try to convince me otherwise. Love the composition and general makeup, and it certainly told me a lot about what Times Square looks like. I think the taxi adds to it significantly, as does the distortion caused by the time-lapse. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't try to convince you otherwise, but to elaborate on why it's de minimis, let me show you a similar image of mine. This one had it's share of critics with licensing concerns on FPC, since the entire frame is filled with individual artworks that would very much likely be copyrighted (even if the intent was clearly for anonymous public display). However, it was nominated for deletion on Commons and the conclusion was de minimis, because no single artwork was integral - they were all independent and incidentical as individual works to the scene. As such, the same idea would apply to this image too IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought of that image when I saw this too, and I remember opposing that one (though, if I remember correctly, it was on philosophical, rather than legal grounds). This is something I'm going to need to become a little more familiar with, I think. I'll take a read of the Commons policy. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you did. I still don't really understand what you meant by that though. I don't want to hijack this nom to discuss it though. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Great picture. Interesting angle and it covers quite a wide variety of aspects of times square activity without breaking copyright. Bravo! 217.33.127.162 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was me. Really annoying that the computers at work dont remember my login! Silvestra (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great image! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About EV I have never been there but my first feeling about this shot is that of missing something. How people that know Times Square feel about this? I looked at the wikipedia article and it says Times Square is a "major intersection" while in the intersection in the picture only one of the streets goes through it and therefore only one of the streets catches all the attention while the other is not even clear if it is a street or the entrance of some building. I saw some other pictures about Times Square in and outside wikipedia and in some I saw that more information can be offered taking the shot from a different position. For instance in other picture I saw that there is a funny shape in that intersection (in Spanish we call it "a knife"), a street that becomes two streets at some point. This is not shown here. (Maybe it is not important, I dont know) I can not draw an opinion or even less a vote from this since I don't know the subject. But I would like to see how those who can feel about this. Is this picture under-representing the subject, not giving all the information about it that can be easily achieved using a different angle?  Franklin.vp   04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that this image doesn't give a complete understanding of Times Square, but no single image could and this one doesn't try to. Sure, you could do a better job of showing that it is an intersection, but then you'd miss other aspects of the square and it might be an awkward composition. The only real way of showing the entire square would be to take a panorama, and I know from experience how hard it is to take a good panorama of it. It's very messy compositionally, and a lot of the more central locations for the panorama are obscured by lots of things (and from memory, would require you to stand in the middle of the road). This one doesn't do a bad job, but it's hardly FP material and it's only about 180 degrees AOV.
 * Support. To answer Franklin's question - yes, I think this captures some of the energy of the square, at least as I've always seen it.  Here's the thing: Times Square is a major intersection, but it doesn't feel like one; whenever you're there, your eye is taken up with so many other aspects of the place that you don't stop to remember that there are roads intersecting there.  It's all about the sense of place, which I think this captures well. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)