Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Oceanografic

L'Oceanografic
Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2012 at 10:12:05 (UTC)
 * Reason:Engaging photo, good composition and quality, high resolution, high EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:L'Oceanografic, City of Arts and Sciences
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Diliff

Guys, without the intention of hurting or causing any fuss, I want to say I think you think in a fixated manner. Ask yourself a honest question: does this "yellow thing" really hurts the composition? What do you really mean by "distracting"? Does it detracts in any way from the main object - the Oceanografic? Does anyone learn about it less? If you want to consider the cropped alternative - you can have a look on it (I think the current has far more better composition). Just as a side note, the picture was elected fifth in the Constructions gallery in last year's POTY. Tomer T (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And support alt Tomer T (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That yellow... thing, in the lower left hand corner. That's awfully jarring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I really like about this picture. That's what making it so special and dramatic. Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yellow rock on the left is distracting. Can you crop? Pine✉ 05:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think it should be cropped. Tomer T (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (original) version without cropping. Pine✉ 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, I think this needs to get cropped. It appears to be FP quality, it just that the rock is distracting. Dusty 777 22:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the crop. Pine✉ 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support alt. Pine✉ 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fussed about crop or no crop, but I don't think it's significantly distracting either, the intention was to frame it using the rock. I've just uploaded an edit over the top of the original with 'better' processing of the extreme highlights. Previously, the foreground rock was borderline overexposed, but I've managed to recover the highlights and I think it looks better now. Doesn't seem like it will persuade anyone though. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anwyay, although I prefer the uncropped version, I added also the cropped one as a nomination. Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Alt I'm sorry Tomer, but I cannot honestly say that the rock in the un-cropped version isn't distracting. I personally think it takes heavily away from the main subject. Dusty 777 03:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support either. Still have a preference for the original FWIW. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's two or three discontinuities in the inner curve of the building towards the upper right of the main face that look like stitching errors. Can this be fixed, or be confirmed that these are building faults rather than image faults? --jjron (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending reply to my above query, with preference to Alt. If I was hanging one on my wall it would be the Original, for WP I think the Alt serves better. The Alt does feel a little cramped at the bottom, but I think mainly due to sitting beside the original with heaps of foreground; still a shame it can't be cropped with a bit more water. The Alt also fixes a minor tilt I believe, though we probably should re-crop from the re-edited original. Reflections in the windows are a bit offputting, but I guess unavoidable. Yeah, yeah, we're maybe getting overfussy here. And just curious. You took this in 2007, uploaded in 2009, but never nominated it here. Any reason? --jjron (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess there are a lot of photos that might be borderline FPs that I've never nominated. I occasionally look back through my 'portfolio' and find decent images that I never got around to processing and uploading at the time, like this one that I took on the same day as this one, but only got around to uploading it when I stumbled on it again. It's not overly spectacular as a photo (and was a massive pain to align all of the steel beams!), but I think it illustrates the subject fairly well and could be worth a chance. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was curious largely because it's been a Commons FP since 2010, but of course I note now that you didn't nominate it there. I do like that other one, a bit shady along the ground, but nice lines and probably worth a nom at some point. Re this one, can you see the discontinuities I asked about above? --jjron (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding discontinuities, I don't see what you mean exactly. If you're talking about the slight wavering edge of the glass panels, that appears to be present in the original RAW files too, so not much I can do about poor workmanship. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not the panels, it's on the white surround. Look for that window at image upper right that has the reflection of a light post or camera or something in it. Where that pane joins the white surround at the bottom the curve stops being smooth, and a similar thing a little lower down. Elsewhere the curve is pretty smooth. Oh, and only just noticed. There's some pretty prominent stitching errors across the row of window panes fourth row down from the top, about a quarter way up them, heading from the centre to image left. I can see four pretty obvious errors there on the verticals, and one small one on the horizontal at the bottom of that row in the centre. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific too, but the weird misalignment of of the glass panels and the white surround is what I was talking about when I said it was present in the originals and is not a stitching fault. I can see one significant stitching fault in the glass further down. It should be fairly simple to fix, but I'm not sure what you're seeing of the others as I can't see any other faults. If they're there, they seem to be so minor (perhaps just one pixel of misalignment?) to be almost impossible to really do anything with. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as I said I wasn't sure if it was stitching or not. The ones across the glass would be more than a pixel, they're not huge, but become more noticeable once you've seen them (there's four almost in a line on four consecutive joins between the panes, around roughly 2100 pixels from the top on the original). At a 50% image downsize they become close to invisible unless you know they're there. Could be tricky to fix. And just noticed two more on the next two panels, a little higher up about 2000 pixels from the top just above the top of that tallest reflected building, but they would be only about a pixel out, really tiny. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

--<b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)