Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ilulissat Airport

Ilulissat Airport
Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 13:18:18 (UTC)


 * Reason:The panorama shows one of Greenland's few airports as well as shows the surrounding area, including the nearby mountains and ice. The photograph captures the isolation of the airport in its surroundings and shows how small it really is when compared to the nature around it.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ilulissat Airport
 * FP category for this image:Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Pellinen


 * Support as nominator --Nighthawk205 (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This stitch is absolutely not up to current technical standards. Brightness steps in the sky are completely avoidable and the horizon is bent like a banana. --Dschwen 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: there are numerous stitching errors all over the picture, there is a sharp horizontal brightness step. This image was not "stitched" the original frames were just smashed together. If the original frames are supplied to me I could to a proper stitch of this image. But in its current state it does not have a snowballs chance... --Dschwen 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This appears to be a case where a contributor thought, “A runway at an airport is long, and a panorama is long too, and I can capture the whole hairy thing.” I’m not in the least bit impressed with an image that essentially encompasses a metric butt-load of runway. Most runways look like… runways. I don’t think the screen real-estate dedicated to the effort enhances ones understanding of that airport; i.e. this image has low EV for illustrating Ilulissat Airport. And like Dschwen said, the stitching is poor. Uncommonly poor. It appears to have been done with an auto-exposure camera, which makes mismatch at seams a nightmare. Greg L (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowadays I almost exclusively prepare my panoramic images in auto-exposure mode. When done correctly you get increased dynamic range for free. --Dschwen 18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Auto Exposure shouldn't be a problem at all as long as it's stitched well. Unfortuantely this isn't. JFitch   (talk)  00:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- As above, plus runways are and should look straight... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Horrible smash up of images. Jfitch (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it horrible.. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would... Strong Oppose, if only for the weird line across the entire width of the picture just below centre... let alone all the above issues... I disagree about the EV tho - compared to other noms on here it at least shows what it's meaning to show! Gazhiley (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, indubitably. If the intent of the image is to illustrate “Big-ass runway from horizon to horizon with a terminal at one end (bring your 10 × 50s and *squint*),” then it has spectacularly achieved its EV objective. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Badly composed, the stitches are clearly visible.  WackyWace  converse 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)