Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walt Disney Concert Hall

Walt Disney Concert Hall


A striking piece of work, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, by Frank Gehry, is in my mind unquestionably one of the most innovative pieces of architecture in the world. Seen at Walt Disney Concert Hall, released to public domain by the copyright holder. This is an excellent photograph.


 * Nominate and support. - Nicholasink 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support . Nice photo. On my monitor there's a some loss of shadow detail, but I think my monitor is calibrated wrong. I'd like it to be bigger, but this size in acceptable. --Pharaoh Hound 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a tough subject. The reason for the dominance of shadow areas is that there are two blown-out highlight areas in the lower right, and one smaller blown-out area center left.  To minimize the blown-out areas, the rest of the photo is darker than we'd prefer or see if we were viewing it directly.  (Visual perception shifts as we direct our attention to different areas of the actual building, but doesn't have enough information to work with to do the same thing with a photo of the building.)  I'd like to make an attempt at editing it to see if I can bring up the shadow areas a bit without making the blown-out areas any worse than they already are.  I'll try tonight. -- moondigger 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One more comment. It also suffers from uneven polarization -- the sky at center is a deeper blue than the sky at right, probably due to using a polarizer on a wide-angle lens.  For some people this isn't too objectionable, though it really bothers others.  For me it's a matter of severity, and this isn't too severe.  It's nearly impossible to correct in post-processing, though. -- moondigger 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Much improved. I don't mind the polarization problems very much (in fact, I dodn't notice them until you pointed them out). --Pharaoh Hound 12:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak support for Edit 2. It's not perfect (it still has that problem with uneven polarization), but it's better than the other daytime photo from this angle in the article.  BTW, this isn't a dusk shot -- based on the reflections the sun is still up in the sky.  I'd guess late afternoon. The first edit is closer to how it would really look in the daytime, but I think we lose too much contrast in the sides of the building.  (Can't increase contrast overall or we risk blowing the highlights even more.)  So I think Edit 2 is a good compromise.  The differences between them are more apparent at full resolution than in the thumbs. -- moondigger 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I just noticed two spots in the image that appear to be the result of dust on the camera's sensor. One is in the upper left corner of the front-facing wall over the sidewalk; the other is in the upper right area of the darkest (left-facing) wall.   I've removed them from Edit 2. -- moondigger 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Nice dusk setting. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The highlights don't bother me. Normally I'd say this was a tad too dark, but there is no other good way to show the curves in the building without the shadows. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Forgive me but I had to walk by a building that looked identical to that (also designed by Gehry) for 4 years of my life, and I've grown to despise his "art". It doesn't go over so well when your building costs millions above what was projected, turns into a waterfall during rain, or a death-trap in the icy winter. :) There was also that former employee who came back with a machine gun and started shooting up the place. Even if I liked the building, there are better angles (available by helicopter) for showing off his work, and this image is kind of stale in the lighting/coloring. You don't really get the metallic shine that you do on a bright day. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-13 22:28
 * Support. Good image and building architecture. G . H  e  03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Blown highlights are almost unavoidable, and they only accentuate the metal. --Janke | Talk 06:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Anonymous_  _Anonymous  14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose its too dull. Its a shiney metal building and it looks like an old pop can. Also there is still noise where the building meets the sky. -Ravedave 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is one of my photos. And not one I'm too proud of frankly. The morning sun gave it a odd color balance, and it was wildly underexposed to prevent even more blowouts. And the dust on the lens of course........ On top of that I used Photoshop's highlights feature to bring up the shadows, which made it look slightly "off". We took a lot of great photos that day, but this IMHO wasn't one of them. But.... It's a tough subject indeed. Hmmmm...... On doing some checking I notice Wikipedia is using about ten of the photos we took that one weekend. Maybe it's time to go back to LA for another photo tour huh?--y6y6y6 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not dust on the lens. It's dust or dirt on the sensor in the camera.  Dust on the lens is way too far outside of the focal plane to show up.


 * I'll be in Cleveland tomorrow if you care for some photos of the Peter B. Lewis Building, another one of his abominations that I alluded to above. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-14 23:13
 * Support edit 2 -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - An awesome piece of architectural work. The contrasts don't bother me in the least. If anything, I like the original picture the best, because it looks more natural. bob rulz 01:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll upload a higher res version of the photo this weekend and try to clean it up real pretty like.--y6y6y6 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Original Picture - Original photo is more natural in showing the Architecture detail, and the contrast gives depth to the building and prevents it from appearing too flat. Advanced 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice image, but such relative easy to shoot subjects should have a higher quality image to be featured. Janderk 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

--Fir0002 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)