Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg

Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg

 * Reason: Stunning picture, technically perfect, high encyclopedic value. Very well done.


 * Articles this image appears in: Hong Kong
 * Creator: Base64

regards, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support reasons see above. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support My god, it's so sharp, it burns! TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am now changing my vote, after seeing the current FP, to weak support as, though there is the mountain offsetting the composition, I like the fact that this is less hazy than the current one. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. That scene looks quite familiar. ;-) I would argue that it isn't a better image than the existing FP that you've just removed from the Hong Kong article to replace with this one. I'd revert your change but I don't want to be seen to be taking it personally so I'll see what others think. I'll admit it is a less foggy/smoggy scene, but the view, while almost identical in terms of location, is a bit skewed, with the mountain side on the bottom-right corner which upsets the composition significantly. Also, I think it looks ever-so-slightly overexposed/flat - this is more just a matter of preference than technical fault, but when the existing FP was nominated, quite a few people complained that it had too much HDR processing and was too bright as a result. If that is the case, then this one is worse. Also ironic is that in the original FP nomination, Base64 (author of this image) thought that the dull, dark, unprocessed version was the most realistic one, and yet his image is far more HDR processed. Anyway, it isn't that I don't like the image. I just think the existing one is slightly better compositionally. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)@Diliff: I think that your picture is quite good as well, and it's clearly justified that it's featured. But I still think that this one has a better perspective and a better composition: In my opinion it looks more naturally. And exactly that is the point: It's rather subjective which one has a better perspective or a better composition. However it seems to be more obvious which one is better for an encyclopedic article: It's Image:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg, as there is a lot less fog. From my point of view that's an important point. Overall: Both are clearly great pictures, the rest seems to be a matter of taste. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As Brian0918 pointed out, the fog/smog isn't necessarily a bad thing as it is quite common in Hong Kong. Also, I'm not sure how you can say that this image is superior in terms of composition. Probably one fifth of the image is obscured by an almost completely blank mountain side! It just looks a bit unbalanced. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask, What do the current FP have in the 1/5 area. I see unidentifiable residential building. The composition is subjective. The current FP has a feel of "Looking from high spots. The one I look has a feel of "Looking from a mountain). Also, the current FP appears in Victoria Peak.And you said it was almost exactly the same location, why would a large mountain show up? The fact is, both images have different location.  --  βαςε LXIV ™  02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why an edit would be better. This image is an unprocessed HDR(don't know how and what to process). The reason I said the "dull, unprocessed" FP is the best is because you have too much "yelllow" lights the the bottom(from the residential buildings in the bottom). ONE MORE THING, I believe I took this image around/after 8:00PM, which means most of the Street lights/other lights were lit. -- βαςε LXIV ™  02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - keep the current FP in the article. Current FP has more content, and based on the discussion from the first FPC, the fog/lighting of the current FP is probably closer to reality. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-06-16 20:11Z
 * About the fog, take a look at this. Look at Dec 2007 and June 2008. -- βαςε LXIV ™  02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support. While yes, the new one has a large portion obscured by the mountain, that is vastly made up by the fact that we can actually see across the strait, with a clearer sky and more vivid colors. No fault of course to the current FP, as it has been said, smog is tough to work with in Hong Kong, but it's been dealt with quite well here I think. Shame about the mountain, but I think the gains outweigh the losses. I do want to ask about the squiggly neon lines moving up and left from the "Wing On" building though. What caused that? --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The squiggly lines are just the result of a long exposure. There are boats moving all over the harbour and any bright lights will show up as a trail as they move. Thanks for your opinion on the images. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . The angle is less encyclopedic, and it definitely has more of that "HDR" effect. Nautica Shad es  01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those HDR effect may make more things visible. See the mountain ACROSS the harbour in the back. That is to show the terrain. -- βαςε LXIV ™  02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I do not think this is what one would see if they looked at the skyline with their naked eyes. Therefore, it is unencyclopedic. Nautica Shad es  00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with you. Therefore, would it be better for the Neutral non-HDR version? --Base64 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all quite puzzling. I've never been to Hong Kong and so I must trust the opinion of others in terms of the realism of the image. In the original nom you say that the neutral version is the closest to reality, but antilived's friend seems to think that the current FP is closest. Can someone clarify this before I alter my vote? Nautica Shad es  16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any one single 'view'. Some days are foggy (clearly many, but from Base64's link it seems I was unlucky to visit when it was significantly foggy for the entire month!), some days are not. I don't think either is any more correct than the other. It really just comes down to personal preference. I'm biased, but I prefer the exposure and composition of mine, although I acknowledge that in terms of visibility, his is superior. They're both good images with different strengths and weaknesses. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right! Both images have different enc value. The existing can illustrate smog, air pollution, haze, Hong Kong Island and Central and Western District. The new one can illustrate Geography of Hong Kong, Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong and Victoria Peak. And I thought this is a new nomination, not Delist and Replace right? .By the way, am I allowed to nominate the non-HDR as alternative? or only the original nonimator(aitias) has the right?
 * Also, I don't agree what antilived's friend said about the current FP's fog is closest to reality. As I do not "Digitally Remove" the fog in this new image. I really monitored the weather and planned before taking the image. So, we shouldn't judge whether the fogs are "common or uncommon", and focus on the image's enc value and detail. Moreover, I have a proof on the "reason" of low visibility in hong kong here. It says it is caused by "suspended particulates(pollution)" from north-west. Which means the visibility is high when a thunderstorm has "washed" them away.
 * If find no one to trust, you can take a look at images at flickr, there are thousands of them with different time and exposure, and weather of course. :-) --Base64 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm why am I pulled into here... :) I think the different versions of the same photo can distort the perception of the time it's taken. The non-HDR version looks like a normal pano at night, whereas Dliff's HDR version looks like it's taken at dusk just after the sun's gone down and yet it's not completely dark, producing a brilliant blue sky (though different to the "normal" blue sky, something you rarely see in the delta). I trust Dliff's judgment in deciding the correct exposure, and therefore I believe it's a photo of the latter scenario (unless Dliff adds the EXIF information back to prove me wrong :p). --antilivedT 08:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't remember exactly what time it was taken. It was probably around half an hour after sunset, so yes, it was dusk, and there was still a glow in the sky (although in the fog, there is a point where it is hard to tell whether the glow is from the sun or the city lights - probably an equal amount of both). I could check the EXIF data but I can't recall whether I changed the camera time to HK local anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck my oppose, because, after all, why can't both be featured? Nautica Shad es  02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, I made an mistake. I haven't done any adjustment on contrast of the original, it is unaltered from RAW to Final Jpeg. I've added the example to show when curves are altered. (It's unnecessary for now) -- βαςε LXIV ™  08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Support Am I allowed to? If this image nominated for being in Hong Kong article, it would be too unrealistic, as it is an HDR. Though it could show almost all details in both side of the harbour. Putting this image in article HDR imaging would be better. -- βαςε LXIV ™  11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Provided it has a good home (I'll leave "good home" up to MER-C's discretion). Both shots are impressive photographic achievements in terms of detail, sharpness, HDR and lack of noise and both deserve the FP badge. And while initially I agreed that the composition of Diliff's (without the hillside on the RHS) was superior, looking at it a full res I've changed my mind. I'm glad that the hillside is included as it gives an important perspective of the relatively abrupt finish of the "sky scraper zone" which is somewhat lacking in Diliff's shot. I particularly like the inclusion of the scene on the very top right corner (looking at 100%) - it finishes the scene better than Diliff's IMO. --Fir0002 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Info I've added the thumbnail of the neutral version for reference. I couldn't improve the composition, but if anyone think the neutral non-HDR is better, let me know, I'll try to produce one. I really hope that uploading the non-HDR image may solve the "overproccessed" issue as said by others. Thanks-- βαςε LXIV ™  13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too bright, looks too HDR, even more so than existing FP. Kaldari (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Fir0002 Jamesflomonosoff (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OpposeBoth are great images but the current FP has more detail that is blocked by the hill on the current candidate. The brightness of the city lights to the center of the image is quite confusing in comparison to the current FP's subtle lighting. --victorrocha (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Cacophony (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support looks great to me. Fine image. Acalamari 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support great image. --Krm500 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Support original weak oppose. I know it's not up for voting, but I'd like to support the original anyway. It has good lighting when in a thumbnail, but when viewed at full resolution, the lighting is perfect. There is much more content than the current FL (what's on the other side of the river makes up for what's behind the hill), and the fog/smog takes a lot away from the current picture as well.
 * Changed my mind; the current FL, while looking dirty (smoggy) and having less content, shows the buildings more lit up (notably Central Plaza, and especially Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong). One of the main features of this picture (and of the Hong Kong skyline) is the skyscrapers and their lighting. The Bank of China Tower (arguably the most famous Hong Kong skyscraper) not being fully lit up is what changed my mind. If I didn't believe the newer picture was of better quality, this would be a strong support. I don't know whether Wikipedia places more relevance on photograph content or quality, so someone who knows all the rules can make up my mind for me. M.nelson (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI about the lighting of some buildings. The existing FP's shooting time is "just after sunset, the new one's shooting time is "around 8PM night", that is why the image's name is Hong Kong Night Skyline instead of Hong Kong Skyline". There is a reason for the Bank of China's partial unlit light. The fact is, after 8PM, the BoC building's light cycles from bottom to top for more than 1 hour, a neutral density filter and long exposure is required to capture it without changing the aperture which affects the quality. Moreover, as you said the major strength of this image is "able to see across the harbour". I believe "Able to see full lighting of BoC bldg" is more important when the image is used in Hong Kong article. And I thought this wasn't a delist and replace nom. The scope of the new image is wider, can you rethink your vote? If your reason for weak opposing is the not fully lit BoC building, I can tell you that the existing FP's BoC bldg is not full lit too! There is two "X" in the bottom missing from the existing FP. Lastly, are you refering to Central Plaza or The Center, if it's The Center, tell me the difference here?--Base64 (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

--Nautica Shad es  22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)