Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam

Keizersgracht in Amsterdam



 * Reason:This photograph is a remarkably sharp image of a cityscape at dusk. It shows the typical Dutch Golden Age scenery in present-day Amsterdam with its canals, bridges, many trees, and canalside houses.
 * Articles this image appears in:Amsterdam, Canal, Canals of Amsterdam
 * Creator:Massimo Catarinella


 * Support as nominator --Ilse@ 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, very good picture strongly communicating the athmosphere of Amsterdam Canals at dusk/night (at its most scenic). Arnoutf (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Let's see, Aug 11, 9pm, Olympics women water polo Netherlands-Hungary on tv, nobody in the streets. Still, a very good picture.  --  Iterator12n   Talk  02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Clean, sharp and great lighting. Excellent addition to any encyclopedia. — Ewald (talk 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suport per Ewald, and good EV. Latics (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. per, nicely done. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I'm surprised I don't see any people. Nice job.  Spencer T♦C 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its a nice moody shot, with that said the composition doesn't show much of amsterdam at all, very little of the canals and doesn't show the geometry of a canal at all. That is, what a canal looks like in the real sense. The image is also quite noisy and finally, this FP does a better job of showing the subject matter. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This picture doesn't show much of Amsterdam at all? It show the essence of the canals of Amsterdam. I especcially picked this part of one of the four main canals for a couple of reasons. First of all it shows you that there are more canals than the four big ones. Second of all it show the typical merchant houses of Amsterdam, namely buildings with a facade composed of three windows. It also depict the bow-type bridges, which are also typical for this city. The only way to get a great picture of the geometry is from a helicopter/plane and that is out of my league. What subject matter does the FP of Diliff illustrates better? More cars? For your information, large sections of the canals are currently being redesigned and there is almost no room for parking space left in this new design. So Diliff' picture will be outdated in a few years. Mine shows a transition of no cars, cars and the Amsterdammertjes, which are also being removed according with the new design. More boats? Only some parts of the canals are filled with boats, but most of them are empty. And finally, the current FP does not show any merchant house whatsoever. The trees block any view of them. And what more do you want to see of this city? Prostitutes and coffeeshops? Prostitutes you will only find on one canals and a couple of adjacent alleys and coffeeshops are not located on the main canals as well. Although I respect your opinion, its quite arrogant too say this to someone who has been born and raised in Amsterdam and still lives there as to someone who has never been there. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nog bedankt voor het nomineren van mijn foto Ilse! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an English wikipedia. Muhammad (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * English: I forgot to thank you for nominating my picture, so thank you Ilse! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the difference between the original and edit 1 is rather small. Most canalside houses in Amsterdam are tilted, so it is hard to determine whether the correction is an improvement or not. – Ilse@ 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The correction addressed the perspective of the whole. Reflections of clouds/lights have to be vertical, houses stayed tilted (as they are in reality). Lycaon (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Lycaon explains why edit 1 is to be preffered and should be featured. I believe this FPC can be closed now. – Ilse@ 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, as I stated before on wikimedia commons, I don't think Lycaon' version is much of an improvement. For one thing there is more JPEG compression. The picture requires cropping after the perspective correction, which is also not preferably. Last but not least, I still don't believe the picture requires perspective correction. All the supports were for the original by the way..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said, Massimo Catarinella, and I'd like to add that, in my humble opinion, a photograph featured in an encyclopedia should not distort reality. As long as the original has not been shot with some kind of (extreme) wide angle lens, then please, leave the houses tilted just as they are in real life. — Ewald (talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)