Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lower Manhattan

Lower Manhattan
Another image from earlier in the year. This is a 12 segment panorama that I took from the Staten Island Ferry, and is very high resolution (Original 7952x1875, Edit 1 12000x2510). I was surprised that I was able to stitch without any (perceptible?) flaws as the ferry was moving towards Manhattan quite quickly.


 * Nominate and support. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Biased support :) Renata 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent resolution (as always). At first, I thought this is just an OK picture - then I had a look at the pictures I have taken of the same subject... Mikeo 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This image speaks for itself. --Pharaoh Hound 18:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wow. --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Hell yes i live in little old England and i must say that the picture and its detail is breath taking--Childzy 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. It's stunning, obviously, but I think that a bit more coverage on the sides would have been nice. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The lighting could be better, but otherwise great shot. Amazing detail. -- bcasterline • talk 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support The picture is impressive, but I think it lack sthat certian stunning aspect. Wolfmankurd 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the most crystal clear photos on Wikipedia right now. Unfortunately, it's what isn't in the picture that's stunning... Nilington 07:15 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jaw dropping photo as far as I am concerned. TomStar81 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, amazing, no doubt about it. Phoenix2 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support very very good. Missing a few towers just left of center. --Golbez 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support wish all FPC's were this good. ;) Stevage 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nice image -- Scot t  11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The buildings on the left are leaning quite significantly. chowells 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True. The colors are also a bit too murky for my taste. Diliff, if you fix these two things, I'll support - because you're so good, I can ask for somewhat higher standards from you... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto :) chowells 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm not sure what to think of that. ;) Well, it depends what one defines 'significantly' as.. I just had a look at the image and the far left building on Manhattan has a 2% lean, by the next building across it is 1% and by one-third of the way across it is imperceptible - not what I'd call significant but I accept there is a lean.. I'll give it a re-stitch anyway. As for the colours, what changes would you prefer? I can't change the weather! It was a bit murky... :) No seriously, I'm sure that some auto-levelling can neutralise the slight magenta tint (which I suspect was due to the low sun near the horizon). Give me 24 hours and I'll see what I can come up with. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest, you might try an "Auto level", then fade that back to 70% - that got me a pleasing result without removing the "atmosphere". (Note that I only uploaded a small test image, and that I'll leave the stitching to the experts... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How does this one look? I couldn't correct it exactly the same way as you as I re-processed the images from RAW with slightly different colour balance settings but it seems approximate to your edit. Its also probably still not PERFECTLY straight, but a panorama of that size is actually very difficult to work with. To see how each minute change affects the image, you have to let it build the panorama (which can take 15-20 minutes). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Now this is worthy of having a Diliff credit line... ;-) Removed my sample, in order not to confuse voters. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support yes, the 2nd is far more pleasing. chowells 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I'll support this image whether or not it's edited although if you go ahead and try Janke's very subtle enhancements that be preferable. --Mad Max 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version. Pegasus1138 Talk 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support IF the colors are corrected. Although maybe they're accurate, and it's just smog :) --  BRIAN  0918 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support savidan(talk) (e@) 13:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a real shame there was that cloud covering much of the left hand side (I assume that's what makes half of the image darker than the rest). Would there be any way to do a subtle gradient of brightening from right to left, or something like that? zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question this has been puzzling me for a while: The buildings on the right hand side are noticeably taller. is this because a) They're actually taller b) They're closer, or c) They were taken later in the sequence, when the boat was closer to them. Stevage 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that the left hand side buildings were a combination of being smaller and being further away (due to the shape of Island), but not due to the ferry moving - if there was too much movement, the stitching would have completely failed. All of the frames were taken within about 10-15 seconds so the movement would have been minimal. All I was worried about was some overlapping buildings were sightly (and only slightly) taller between frames and therefore not aligned properly. I just confirmed the view with Google Earth (with 3d buildings turned on) and it basically exactly mirrors the panorama I took. Its accurate. This isn't quite the same perspective (taken from much closer), but it shows you the difference between the left and right sides. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

~ Veledan • Talk 09:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)