Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Port Vell, Barcelona

Port Vell, Barcelona

 * Reason:A very high res, detailed view of Port Vell from a good vantage point overlooking the harbour on a clear sunny day. Good enc value.
 * Articles this image appears in:Barcelona and Port Vell
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The port building at the bottom - I am weak opposing for composition with it being cut off as it is quite distracting and given what it is is pretty relevant to the port itself and thus the EV in Port Vell - I would guess it is just not possible to include it all from that vantage point without too much distortion? Mfield (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be entirely honest, I cannot say for certain why I was not able to include the entire building at the bottom, as it was taken about 2 years ago! You could well be right that it would not be possible to include it for reasons of distortion, but it could also have been for compositional reasons (I know it isn't ideal to have cut the building off in this way) as there may have been distracting elements that including the entire building introduced. If I had to guess, I would say that it was because I was shooting this through the very cramped and restrictive lookout of the Monument a Colom, and if I remember correctly, it didn't allow much vertical panning. I had a quick google search and did find one photo that managed to squeeze a bit more of the building into the frame (not all of it) but had a bit of the monument in the frame, so I'm not sure if it is possible - didn't find any other images that were able to capture the full building. I usually have a pretty good eye for composition so I'm sure I had a good reason at the time, anyway. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Port or not, this is still a stunning panorama. It could be better, but if you were to try to crop the bottom portion out you would lose the whole dock. Teque5 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support IMO, EV is good in the articles it appears in. Quality is good and I could not see any stitching errors. --Muhammad (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for composition. The subject of the panorama is the harbor, which feels off-center. The port building, being an interesting feature in the foreground, is frustratingly cut off. Both are problems you would not see in a professional encyclopedia, except in historic photographs. Wronkiew (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC) After further reflection, I think I'm out of my league on this one. Wronkiew (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the subject has to be off-centre in order to show it relative to its environment (Barcelona city, on the left). Also, the key word here is 'professional'. If I were paid lots of money for this shot, I'd probably hire a helicopter and get a professional quality image from the air, letting me choose my composition precisely. But I'm not and I was forced to get the best possible view from the vantage points available to the public. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt professional encyclopedias are hiring helicopters to get photographs for their articles, but I see your point. I still think the composition leaves something to be desired. The panorama should extend more to the right and to the bottom for balance and to capture the building in the foreground without cutting it off. I am open to changing my opinion if my assessment of the composition is incorrect or if this is a minor issue that should not disqualify the photo. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, composition is inherently subjective, so I cannot tell you that you are absolutely wrong. Obviously the composition isn't perfect, and compromises are necessary to avoid certain elements, include certain elements, etc. I personally think this is pretty close to the best view available of the port though, and I challenge you to find a better one anywhere on the internet, if you're think a professional encyclopaedia could do a better job (Here is a starting point: iStockPhoto, Getty Images, Flickr, Pbase, Google Image Search). I had a look when responding to Mfield and all were inferior in some way (IMO) so honestly, I feel this could literally be the best image available on the internet, whether free or for sale. But as I've stated before, not all subjects have images that are capable of meeting the criteria necessary, so if you still feel it isn't up to scratch, I won't argue any further. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and discussion above. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Mfield. It's a valuable image, and does a great job of illustrating its subject in context, but that cut off building just pokes me in the eye.--ragesoss (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)