Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/London Eye Twilight April 2006

London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg
As well as being very beautiful, this image illustrates well our article on the subject, especially as it is the only image of the wheel in darkness - something for which the Eye is particularly well-known.


 * Nominate and support. - James F. (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. ed g2s &bull; talk 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful photo, good detail, nice use of blurring on the wheel to show movement. SteveHopson 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice photo. Yes. Rob Church (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, very nice. --Golbez 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. the wub "?!"  23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support! Runtime 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Cool! gren グレン 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Awesome!.-- Dakota ~ 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Sweet photo. Pegasus1138 Talk 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This photo doesn't illustrate the pods that you ride in, nor does not show that the wheel is right over the waters edge. Fortunately we have other images in the London Eye article that show these aspects nicely. I got to ride this wheel a few years ago, it felt kind of futuristic. ~MDD4696 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the image doesn't illustrate all aspects of the London Eye, but I don't think an image can easily do that. If you want to show the capsules, you can't show the movement, and if you show the overall stucture of the eye, you don't see the details. A featured picture is supposed an impressive visual introduction to an article, not necessarily definitive in its own right, or at least, thats how I see it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support One problem: focus at left edge (why is that blurry when it's sharp at right?). --Janke | Talk 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not sure why this happened. My suspicion is that, as I was using the 24-105mm f/4L IS (meaning image stabilisation), I may have left the image stabilisation on which can apparently cause trouble when on a tripod. I've since tried to replicate the problem with the lens but there doesn't appear to be an intrinsic fault with it. I uploaded the image despite the fault as I didn't feel it significantly interfered with the photo, although I wasn't so keen to nominate it. ;) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd say this photo actually has a romantic feel about it :-). Andrew 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone! Beautiful image. Staxringold 14:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the original. Impressive! Mooveeguy 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  Will  ( E @ )  T  20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added an alternative image that fixes some of the problems with the original image. I think it is an improvement in all aspects except that the motion blur may be excessive for some people's taste. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The first one is better IMO, despite the focus problem. In that one, you can still discern the individual pods. --Janke | Talk


 * Support. Pretty cool looking picture.  I saw this on a Doctor Who episode not too long ago, and I didn't know what it was.  I still don't know, so I'll have to go to the article to look it up.  -- E lkman - (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 6sec exposure. I prefer the lighting in the first picture, and am willing to trade in some corner sharpness :-) --Dschwen 08:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)]
 * Support 30 sec exposure I prefer the lighting in this one :) Sharpness is also, of course, much nicer. chowells 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 6sec exposure. Very beautiful picture!. The 6s-version leaves some more details of the LondonEye (just enough). Mikeo 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Either exposure. While I admit that the 6s-version may be more "encyclopedic" in that it does a moderately better job at illustrating the pods, the 30s-version is, IMO, a better photograph. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either. though the first one is preferable.say1988 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support either. But I'd prefer the first one. Lovely colors. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 11:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I support it. It's beautiful! 69.158.62.206 13:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, anonymous users can't vote. Feel free to create an account to vote (or log in if you simply forgot to do so). — Cuivi é  nen  , Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 00:38 UTC 
 * Support - wow! - Adrian Pingstone 21:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Either exposure would a good FP, though for different reasons; the 30 second exposure illustrates an extended exposure extremely well. (And we must have an article about that, right? I just can't find it.) — Cuivi é  nen  , Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 00:38 UTC  00:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most interesting and beautiful photos I have seen for a while. -- Thorpe | talk 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Awesome picture! -AM 0 88
 * Support Simply stunning. Tobb 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 6sec exposure Agree with Mikeo. Yousifnet 02:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the second image. I love the colours, and the picture is pretty much centred and symmetrical. Ali K 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

. The first seems more popular, although both are indeed worthy photos. Raven4x4x 07:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)