Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gateway Arch

Gateway Arch

 * Reason:Good quality image of one the most famous monuments in the United States, high res, and a useful sense of scale. I know I personally don't like the vegetation in the corner, either, but it does not detract from the image substantially.
 * Articles this image appears in:Gateway Arch
 * Creator:Daniel Schwen


 * Support as nominator -- ceran  thor 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It feels good to nominate an image again. :)
 * Thanks, by the way. --Dschwen 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry?  ceran  thor 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for believing in my image. I mean it. --Dschwen 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Anyway, I knew the technicals were a little low, I nominated it for its EV and useful sense of scale.  ceran  thor 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sense of scale was the main reason I uploaded and put in the article. We have lots of pictures of only the top portion of the arch. Getting an more frontal perspective is rather tricky by the way. You either have to go to the other side of the Mississippi (right in the picture), which is far, or use extreme wide angle. There is a small hill between arch and city (just out side the frame to the left), so that the bottom part is always occluded when you try increasing the distance. Going up on a roof might help. But getting access is problematic. (btw. did the thank you really sound ironic? I apologize.) --Dschwen 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think it was, as I've interacted with you before and you always cam across as helpful, but you can never be sure.  ceran  thor 19:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - not sure if this is the best illustrative angle, also quite grainy. The sun was too bright as well --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how would I dial down the brightness of the sun? --Dschwen 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a photo when the sun dials itself down, i wasnt being flippant, it is too distracting--  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above, but also I'm sure that vegetation in top right left can surely be edited out as it does kinda distract. Gazhiley (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see this nomination removed than the image manipulated to take the foliage out. It is one of the better Arch images we have (I might be biased here), and complaining about grain in a 12MP image but happily promoting downsampled 2MP images is somewhat ridiculous, but I would not have nominated this myself. Well, most certainly not here at least. --Dschwen 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the composition not being the best to show the shape of the arch, but I completely agree that the trees should not be edited out. That said, the solution would have been to take about 4 or 5 steps foward with minimal impact on the perspective. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Well, it depends on what you want to solve :-). I thought it'd be a good idea to include the trees, as it is a tree lined walkway. But I can see that it didn't quite work out the way I planned it, and that some people might not like the composition. I'll try to keep this in mind (I guess the detatchedness of the foliage top-left is problematic. If it could be seen connected to a tree it might look better) and try alternatives. As a matter of fact I still have lots of material from that trip. Maybe something better is still on my harddisk. In particular I dis several exposure bracketed night time panos. A pain in the butt to assemble... --Dschwen 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)