Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Los Angeles from Getty panorama

Los Angeles from Getty panorama

 * Reason:a sharp high resolution near 180 degree panorama of Los Angeles on an exceptionally clear winters day clearly showing a large number of landmarks and illustrating the geography of the city.
 * Articles this image appears in:Getty Center‎, West Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Interstate 405 (California)‎
 * Creator:Mfield


 * Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support fantastic timing: a rare moment where the 405 Freeway isn't bumper to bumper north of the 10. Seriously, a very large 180 degree panorama.  Los Angeles being what it is, any image that gives a relatively clear view from downtown to both Brentwood and the peninsula is a good one.  Durova Charge! 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't mean 360, but i added the angle - it's actually a couple of degrees short of 180. Mfield (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto. Durova Charge! 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see where I used to live (Veteran Ave.) and work (UCLA physics building). Any reason you aren't sharing the full size version? --Dschwen 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One reason only - the lack of a non commercial license option. I upload less commerically useful imagery to Wiki at full reslution and if there was a way of doing CC with NC then I'd upload the original of this in a heartbeat. However this version is not exactly small at 10000 wide. Mfield (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Contrasts nicely with my vaguely similar image taken a couple of years ago. By LA standards, you're right, that is exceptionally clear. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great photo, I'm starting to love panoramas. :) – LATICS   talk  03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wish I could get panoramas to turn out like that. vlad§inger  tlk  22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose only for aesthetic reasons. I don't like composition on this one. I would have prefered a lower point of view, with less sky. Blieusong (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. To Blieusong- a lower perspective could easily block most of what is visible from this vantage. de Bivort 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Durova and Debivort.--ragesoss (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Blieusong that a lower angle would help, but still of featurable quality in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Wonderful panorama. Respect to the photographer. - Darwinek (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. When viewed full sized, the image is quite spectacular. Someone else could argue about composition, but there's more than one way to picture a city. Given that it's Los Angeles, there are so many ways to do this, there is something pleasant about the exquisite detail. I would support this and favor a wikipedia entry with links to city multiple panoramas of major cities or particularly beautiful smaller citys. A single would do for many. To be honest I would like a link to cityscapes in panoramic former with the content to links, ideally with enough description to facilitate choice. In terms of information, where it can be done, the general location of the photographer (as here or what works). Degrees within a few degrees, e.g. 110, 140, 150, 180. Whether, composite or panorama, camera and detail. In every case possible. I would include the name of the photographer and/or agency -- as part of the popup description. Getty is less valuable than the ties to an individual photographer given the spreading fraud of false claims for the work of others -- and the belief that the maker's art lives best when it's connected personally to the artists.This one could include Mfield's credit as well as Getty to everyone's advantage. Jmc9595 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am confused what you mean by Getty credit? This image is not and has never been the property of Getty. The reason that this image is in the Getty article is that the image was shot (by me) from the South facing balcony of the center. The image has no other connection to Getty, either the center or the picture agency. Mfield (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused by why this was brought up in the FP nomination that has already passed and been archived. I suppose it was found via the image page. Not really the appropriate place to bring the issue up in any case, although as you say, there really is no issue and it is a case of crossed wires. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)