Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hankopan.jpg

Hanko panorama




Ok, I'll try and see if I can even begin to compete with the magnificent panoramas shown here lately. This one is in the Hanko, Finland article, and shows the typical, mostly wooden architecture, and the coastline of a Finnish small town. Since the camera is looking straight into the sun, the burn-out in the water & sky is inevitable. I shot and stitched this 6 years ago. Back then, there were no good stitching programs available (the one that came with the camera was practically useless), so this is stitched completely manually. For this reason, there are some imperfections. I know some of you are looking for such, so maybe I'm not very wise in telling you this... ;-)


 * Self-nom and support. - Janke | Talk 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nice stitch job. I'd like to see the continuation on the right. The left third is a but boring, the middle part is dark woods and blown out sun/sky. The right third is nice though. --Dschwen 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the manual stitching didn't work further right - the more built-up area gave me no way of "cheating" with the stitching - and, to be honest, that part of town doesn't look as nice. But if anyone has some good stitching software, I can either e-mail or upload the nine original files (totaling 360°) for you to try - only 7.5 Mb... --Janke | Talk 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Diliff did try, but it appears that even his modern software and his considerable talent in using it couldn't handle this, since it is shot with a downward tilt, distorting the original images. If anyone else cares to try, either manually or with software, I'll give you the link to the original pics. Challenge time! ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

. Promoted original - all are good and several have some support but no clear consensus for any other version ~ Veledan • Talk 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the original, or a version continued to the right. - JPM | 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sun reflecting off the water ruins it for me, unfortunately. Alr 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This image just doesn't do anything for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support, its nice and does illustrate the article, but the sun is a problem and (is it just me) the quality seems slightly off. BrokenSegue 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chop off the left third and accentuate the water a bit, and you've got my vote. The water's the most attractive bit of the photo, and sadly is relegated to background by the shopping centre on the right. --Fipe 10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] Oppose Poor image quality at full res. A better time of day (noon) could have been used to avoid the burnt-out-straight-in-the-sun areas --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't think waiting 27 minutes would have helped much... ;-) Sun and water is always a problem in a back-lit situation. In fact, I was surprised that the camera (a 2 megapixel Canon Ixus made in 1999) managed as well as it did! --Janke | Talk 13:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nice picture, good illustration, and especially impressive given the limitations of your equipment & software. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support Great picture -- the quality is good, and it really gives you a feel for the town.--Xiaphias 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Mstroeck 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, and I'm willing to try the stitching challenge if you send me the originals. As for the sun over the water, that's an integral part of the landscape.  Remember that this town is at latitude 59.5° N.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a full 360° version restitched in hugin: see above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks! I still see some very slight stitcing mismatches, but nowhere as much as in my manually stitched 360 degree version (which I decline to submit for that reason). Now, we need to decide what part of the 360 degrees constitute a FP - I don't think the whole is greater than the parts, here.. ;-) I think I did indeed choose the best parts in my own stitching attempt... --Janke | Talk 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For comparison, I added the middle 180° of the full panorama above. How's that look?  Too narrow?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it crops off a bit too much on the left - gets kind of cramped in that corner, also due to some vertical cropping - which may be inevitable in the "curved type" stitching, as opposed to rectilinear. --Janke | Talk 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, how about an intermediate 270° version? I kind of like that one myself.  It extends approximately as far as you original version on the left, but includes enough extra area on the right to keep the sun in the center.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prefer either my original version or the 270 degree by you. Let's see what others think, if they still bother to scroll this low down on the page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol_support_vote.png|15px|Strong Support 360° Panorama]] Strong Support 360° Panorama Very nicely done. Alvinrune TALK 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Closing comment: As the photographer, I'd prefer the original version as FP, due to its rectilinear perspective. --Janke | Talk 06:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)