Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portland Skyline

Portland Skyline

 * Reason:A large, sharp, high quality photograph. Plenty of ENC value. Eye catching.
 * Articles this image appears in:Portland, Oregon, Downtown Portland
 * Creator:User:Fcb981


 * Support as nominator and creator &mdash; Fcb981 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It looks very nice. Althepal 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I like the original most, but if not that, the third panorama also has my support. Althepal 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is oversaturated and ideally would've been taken closer to the Morrison Bidge so that the Hawthorne doesn't obscureWells Fargo Center and KOIN Center, two of the most prominent buildings in the Portland skyline. That angle would also give a better view of the Hawthorne and the pillars at the bottom right wouldn't be a distraction.  Having the Spirit of Portland docked would also be an improvement.  In other words, it is highly reporducable and could be improved.  Cacophony 05:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't compose this on some whim. At that location on the waterfront trail there is an ideal vantage point to avoid dock pillars, trees, shrubs and fences that obscure parts of the city from almost everywhere. Idealy, I'd be able to go up on the marqum bridge and take it from there, thus avoiding the Hawthorne, but standing in a 8 inch space between cars and the water is not going to happen. I did try closer to the morrison but couldn't get nearly as much of the north part of downtown. So I figured, koin center and wells fargo building vs. all of north downtown. As to the saturation, I shot with a polorizer to saturate a bit and by camera is set to +2 saturation which I prefer. In other words. Its the best composition I could find in 45 min of looking. Its big and sharp and free of stitching errors and lit well. So please by all means try to take a better shot but I am confident that we will have to wait a while. -Fcb981 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The colors look too vivid, like it was printed for a tourist brochure rather than an encyclopedia. The resolution could be higher. Bleh999 07:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oversaturated, contrasts too harsh (bridge is under exposed and the buildings in the bg are overexposed), and for the picky: the verticals could be corrected a tad better (but that's really just for the picky). --Dschwen 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak opppose : It might be possible to tweak the levels a bit to get an FP out of it, but the buildings look like chalk drawings because they're a bit low on detail (up contrast a bit?) and over-saturated. Adam Cuerden talk 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 - That fixed the problems nicely. Adam Cuerden talk 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit two - per above. Schcambo 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Beautiful. SingCal 05:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Very nice work. Great job the second time around! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2, with urging that Edit 2 be substituted for the original nom in the articles in which it appears.  Spikebrennan 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

--Raven4x4x 08:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)