Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iowa Supreme Court

Iowa Supreme Court
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 23:14:48 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good picture, high EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Ctjf83


 * Support as nominator -- C T J F 8 3  chat 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Image is a bit noisy and not very sharp. Angle of photo could be better, closer to perpendicular or further away would be better. Also, the time of day could be chosen better (lighting issues).  Jujutacular  talk 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific for future pics. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * About time of day? Depending on what direction the photo is taken from, you either want to take it closer to sunrise or sunset. Taking it near midday makes the lighting very harsh.  Jujutacular  talk 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and what kind of "noise" are you talking about? C T J F 8 3  chat 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See image noise. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding (and I may be slightly wrong here) is in simple terms the level of detail... "Noise" is shown on this picture as almost a blurred effect on the bushes and the stones... They are not sharp enough to give full crisp detail and just come across as "fuzzy" as such... Not massively technical, but compare this picture at full zoom to plenty of the Building FP's and you will see a remarkably higher level of detail...  gaz hiley .co.uk  12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above noise issues... But framing is poor as well - building is not centre in the picture, and also is leaning... gaz hiley .co.uk  12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be cropped. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True... But until it is cropped, I still oppose... And I wouldn't bother because of all the other issues... gaz hiley .co.uk  21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would this meet Valued Picture criteria? C T J F 8 3  chat 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya it looks like it meets valued picture criteria. Spongie555 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Image quality is really too inferior. Lighting is very bad indeed; the building itself is underexposed due to the bright sky behind it, and details are difficult to discern. Image is not sharp. Composition is also quite bad. The angle is exceedingly awkward. Building is to the side -- and cropping would make the picture framed way too tightly. If possible, this picture should be taken with a more decent camera at a better time of day with a longer focal length at a better angle. Nice building, though. The architecture is not bad. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)