Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ostankino Television Tower

Ostankino Tower

 * Reason:technically good, either by hand or photoshop, extremely compelling and detailed, illustrative of modern design and life, worth well over 1000 words... may need to be scaled down to be used on front page
 * Articles this image appears in:Ostankino Tower, List of tallest structures in the former Soviet Union, List of tallest structures in Europe
 * Creator:listed as Vladimir Kosolapov, is this the same as the uploader HeatSink (?)


 * Support as nominator --Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks kind of washed out, but definite wow and good technicals. Ceran  →// forge 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was actually working on a vertical scroll template, so I've put this image inside it. It really is brand new - I just finished getting it to usable status today - but it seems to work fine, and should mean there's no problems on the main page. Tweak the template at will. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to work on Safari, I only get the top 1/4 of the image via the scrollbar? Mfield (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it works in Firefox and IE, and I have no way to check Safari to fix it. =/ Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a PC version if that helps. Mfield (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me in Safari (on Mac). ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also only getting the upper portion of the image using Safari, however what is does show the scrollbar is working fine. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose an impressive image but the distortion (artefacting?) around the tower is a bit distracting, especially at the top and - in my opinion - the level of clarity and detail doesn't compare to other featured images of towers, such as this one. Guest9999 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Artefacting. But I am interested to see where this nom goes given that my failed nom for a giant KXJB mast panorama Featured_picture_candidates/Kxjb_tv_mast_pano.jpg got opposed for being an extreme aspect ratio that wouldn't fit on the main page. Mfield (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't have happened. Articles can be featured even though they might not get on the front page. Images should be treated the same. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Technical aspects lack --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (by nominator) after reading the previous KXJB tower discussion I can see that discussion is probably heading to a question of making the pic smaller, which will help with the artefacting I hope, if that becomes such a problem. I am not against doing that, but since I just found the pic on its own, I don't know what the rules are on editing someone else's pic. And the image is of a quality that even smaller it will not detract from the technical details of a tower and microwave dishes, antennas catwalks etc which I think is why this shot is really great. and yes this is my IP, I only used my login because I had to create a new page for the discussion. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think downsizing will help at all. I just tried putting the original version through a workflow to attempt to clean up the artifacting, but I don't think the result was enough of an improvement to pass FP so I didn't upload it as an Alt, I can if anyone thinks its worthwhile/would like to see it. There is so much artifacting and noise a downsize to mitigate them would have to be so significant as to severely compromise the detail. I wonder whether the artifacting was not so bad in the component images and was compounded by extra saves in the original stitching and PP. I also note there are severe bands in the sky where the stitcher didn't blend the images together well, and these are really brought out by properly correcting the levels. I think it needs to be reshot really, there's just too many issues that are impossible to fix after the fact. Mfield (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Artifacting and lack of sharpness.  Spencer T♦C 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose because too much of the bottom of the tower is obscured by trees. A propos of nothing, Mfield, maybe now that we have this vertical scroll bar capability a re-nomination of your mast photo might fare differently.  Spikebrennan (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to technical aspects mentioned above. Sasata (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of artefacts.- Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)