Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/New York Skyline

New York Skyline

 * Reason:High-definition panorama with lots of detail
 * Articles this image appears in:New York City
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd prefer a rectilinear stitch if at all possible - those curved buildings look a bit freaky... --Janke | Talk 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a consequence of parallax or something else? Fletcher (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a result of curvilinear projection. Most (rectilinear) lenses correct for the fact that, in a given shot, objects in the corners of the frame are relatively farther from the camera. But once you turn the camera to make a panorama, you have to use software to correct (if so wanted) the changing perspective as the camera rotates. Here, it looks like a simpler cylindrical projection was kept. Thegreenj 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried the same panorama in the daytime and it turned out pretty marginal from a field of view and composition perspective. Which reminds me that I still need to stitch some more things from New York last January... -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - shiny. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose too dark.  Reywas92 Talk  14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support At first, I thought the darkness of the picture wouldn't look well in the article, but in the article, it looks very nice.  Spencer T♦C 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit Oppose I have to oppose, just too dark.  I think there is enough info in the image to lighten it though.  If this was done I would have to reevaluate. --Leivick (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC) The edited version is definitely up to FP standards especially given the fact that tripods are not allowed at the place where the image was taken. --Leivick (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too dark.--Caspian blue 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Are the blue and yellow streaks through this white balance errors between successive frames or a result of light pollution? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like light pollution to me. --Dschwen 18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I have a comparable image which is not as dark and has four times the resolution. That makes me reluctant to support this nice picture. So neutral for now. --Dschwen 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Don't be misled by the fact that it appears dark as a small thumbnail: this is a night panorama and it shouldn't appear light. The detail is there, so it's obviously captured well enough. See how it looks in the NYC article: it does a wonderful job illustrating this marvellous (and even a bit scary for a mid-sized-town guy like me :P) cityscape. Image:NYC_TotR_night.jpg is not four times larger, but two times; furthermore, it's not a night shot and it isn't sharp enough to justify its size. Todor→Bozhinov
 * Two times wider, two times taller = four times bigger. And sharpness is pretty good. --Dschwen 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of how you see it: I'm talking about proportion. If this image is enlarged twice, it would pretty much fill your photo completely, i.e. yours is twice bigger. But it's true that this photo can fit four times in yours without any size changes. And I'm not saying your photo is bad, it's pretty nice, but it has some minor sharpness and artifacting issues. Todor→Bozhinov 12:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The view looks absolutely stunning. Technically speaking, I see nothing particularly flawed with the image. I don't think that a night view of this skyline can appear much better in a photograph. It somewhat reminds me of the Picture of the Year nominee HDR photograph, yet this one shows more detail and it captures the skyline scene ever better. -- mcshadypl T C  02:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with this Picture of the Year runner-up that I wouldn't even call it an FA by today's standards. Yeah, it's intense when viewed smaller, but it has many technical flaws. HDR can do better. Todor→Bozhinov 12:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't mind the projection method, but the verticals at the edges need to be straightened. Mfield (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find the resolution to be too small for a panorama and per Mfield. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - a bit fuzzy in the corners, but good enough for our requirements. Stevage 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the edit a lot. Though the top half of this building at the right edge looks really weird, like it's transparent. Just a reflection, I think, but it's weird. Stevage 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure if I would support this image either, as I agree that it is a bit too dark. To give you guys a bit of background to the shot, I took this at ISO 800, with an 85mm f/1.8 lens wide open (f/1.8) and 1/40sec exposures, which was at the absolute boundary of what I could shoot handheld - as good as it is going to get without a tripod at night (which is not allowed anyway). Even then, because of the extremes in the dynamic range of the scene, I had to underexpose it to avoid blowing out the highlights. At ISO 800, the ability to brighten the shadows was very limited, so that is why the image is so downsampled. You'd be apalled at the quality if you saw the originals - The images have some really strange diagonal moire/interference in the shadows that I suspect may have been due to the close proximity to high power transmitters on the top of the tower. Dschwen, maybe with your physics background you might be able to comment on that? In any case, all of the above effectively neutered my ability to take a truely uncompromised image. I would have loved to get there just after sunset but unfortunately poor planning and long waiting lines conspired against that idea! If I had the chance again, I'd shoot bracketed shots and get there a bit earlier! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could a reshoot with an IS lens get a brighter exposure?  (Not that I expect you to hop on a plane or anything). Fletcher (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, as there are no IS lenses with f/1.8, particularly in that focal length range. The fastest IS lenses in that range (with lower image quality too) are f/3.5 or f/4. This is fine, but the problem is that at that aperture, you would need a shutter speed of around 1/8th of a second at 85mm, which is too slow to be sharp even with an IS lens. I had an IS lens with me when I shot this scene, but it was not viable in the conditions because of the shutter speed issue. Trust me, everything that could be done to make the most of this shot was done! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose too dark --Base64 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support (either, but Mfield's shadow lift looks good) I'm going against the grain here, but now I'm convinced people do not appreciate the difficulty of this shot, especially given no tripods allowed. (1) While conceding the extreme foreground is too dark, the landmark buildings are well lit. (2) I've seen brighter exposures that can be very pretty, but compromise on image quality.  They are blurrier and blow the highlights. The brighter versions give a warm and inviting, almost painterly atmosphere, but just aren't as crisp and clear, which is important for our encyclopedia (non-free example).   Compare Declan McCullagh's GE Building in this example (whose sign is too blurry to read) with Diliffs's which is sharper and clearer with no windows blown.   (3) Dschwen has some nice shots but they don't directly compete with this one, being pointed downtown and taken with lingering daylight.  This is the "city that never sleeps" so a night shot is enc.  Further, even with less light, this one is sharper than Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg (e.g., the lettering on MetLife and Verizon).  On the downside, I wonder if the perspective could be improved and why does the left side have a cooler cast than the right side (even behind Times Square).  But overall, just browsing flickr and pbase, there are many pictures that are really lovely, but I don't see anything quite like this one.   Fletcher (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This is so amazing, it almost makes my cry (Note: anonymous IPs have no suffrage, please log in to vote.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.133.179 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. If the only main reason for opposition to this image is the brightness (or lack thereof), then I could go back to the original files and see what can be done. I don't think it will be at all possible to increase the brightness to many people's satisfaction (as I said, it was underexposed to preserve highlights and detail may simply not be there in the shadows), but it might be possible to improve it. Noise and artifacts will start to play their part too. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple level correction would do - like this...--Janke | Talk 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The thumb may look dark, but it's fine at full size. Great work, Diliff. Amphy (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Diego_pmc  Talk 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose too dark. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Add Edit1 to lift shadows per Opposes and per Janke. With the greatest respect to Diliff, I think it can easily support this much of a shadow lift wihout causing issues with either scene accuracy or noise. I've been up there enough times to know this isn't stretching the way it appears to the eye. Mfield (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It is a great picture. I especially like the new edited one better.Uturnaroun (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit Gorgeous! Clegs (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)