Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Windsor Castle Quadrangle

Windsor Castle Quadrangle


I took this six segment panorama on the weekend (along with the lead image on the Windsor Castle). Yes, there are some blown highlights on the right side of the sky, and I know it doesn't scream "wow!", but it is a high quality image of the inner sanctum of the largest functional, inhabited castle in the world and in my opinion worthy of featuring. Just don't dare point out any not-quite-verticals! ;-)


 * Nominate and support Edit 3. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Original or Edit 3. I love the lighting and the silhouette of the equestrian statue. You can also see every detail of the walls, including the gargoyles. And actually, the "blown" highlights don't look 100% blown. Have you checked the histogram? Nautica Shad e  s  11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm impressed by the geometric perfection of this segment photo (just compare with this one, which I did not support). I'll probably vote "support" after acepting some details which I'm not sure I like such as the slightly weird colouring and the dark statue (I would prefer no to be a silhouette). I don't think the blown highlights are much relevant. - Alvesgaspar 11:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason for it being geometrically 'perfect' is just that it wasn't such a wide view and I was able to use rectilinear projection (which kept all straight lines straight). What do you mean weird colouring? It was taken just before sunset so the light touching the building was slightly red-orange hued. If you think those colours are strange, check out the lead image of the article. It turned into a very pink sunset later in the evening. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree about the strange colours; I think the weather makes the castle itself a lot less punchy, and I think Fir is right about the tower being cut off. In the edits, the subject is not emphasised enough on account of the sky.• Le  on
 * Comment. Regarding Fir0002's crops illustrating possible stitching faults, I'm not sure myself actually. The uneven pavement could be either a fault or simply that - uneven pavement - although it does look a bit odd. As for the balustrade, it looks ok to me but I'd have to consult the original files to know for sure. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Even with the grass looking oversaturated (which I don't mind, as seen in many other FP), and the possible very minor stiching errors, and the partially backlit subject, I feel this is a unique image, with very sharp detail, and good composition and exposure. How do you get the detail so sharp?--Andrew c 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think those are stitching glitches - there's a small one in the grass just under the big gate, too. Withholding my vote, I'd like to see a version with some level/curve correction, addressing the concerns about the "weird" colors. A bit more spiffy, please! --Janke | Talk 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific about what is wrong with the colours...! Otherwise I may just adjust them in the opposite direction of what you'd prefer ;-). I'm still struggling to see what the problem with them is. As for the stitching, I think you're right, I see the one under the gate - what gives it away as being a stitching fault and not just deviation of the grassline is that the entry itself shifts slightly at the same point as the grass! As for Fir0002's other question about the stitching of the building (not sure I'd call it a balustrade though - more like a safety rail), I don't see anything wrong with it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, since you ask, see the example here, which lightens up the building a bit, but leaves the sky untouched... --Janke | Talk 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To confirm, that's what I meant also :-P. Although Janke's edit looks a little blue to me • Le  on  08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - very nice, high detail. The comments about stitching faults are silly - they're incredibly minor (if they even exist) and don't even remotely detract from the image. We *know* it's a stitched panorama - looking for faults to say "it's been stitched!" is kind of pointless. The colours could be slightly better, but it easily meets the standard already. Stevage 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor faults? For a pic by Diliff the panorama perfectionist, they're huge... Haven't you noticed we keep a special standard for him and Fir, lest FPs should consist of pictures by them only - with the same standards all over, nobody else would ever have a chance... NOTE: --> ;-)  --Janke | Talk 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. We shouldn't allow anything but perfection from his hands... Alvesgaspar 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - clean and encyclopedic. I like it. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?)  00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The picture is great, but it's not "Diliffic". Agree with Janke. | A ndonic O   Talk  10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Edit 1 is overdone. The castle looks now pale, sick (I suspect someone has to go there and take a pic at sunset just to make sure what the real colour is...). As for the perspective I really don't know what you mean. Can´t see any relevant difference (except in the left turret which is now leaning to the right). Alvesgaspar 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Edit 1 has fixed the stitching problems (although I largely agree with Alvesgaspar on the color), but I think this would have been better taken at a different time of day, as the backlighting on the subject is neither encyclopeadic nor aesthetic. I'm not sure on the availble vantage points, but it would have been good not to have the tower on the LHS to not be cut off. Also, and again I don't know if it was possible, but a pano looking top down (perhaps from a tower) would look better. --Fir0002 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The backlighting is not what is supposed to be encyclopaedic.. I find it ironic that you mention the encyclopaedicity/encyclopaedicness (no idea what the correct word for that is!) of backlighting as you have submitted an image to FPC in the past that featured a completely fake substitute sky (war memorial). There were no other vantage points as the entire quadrangle (and majority of buildings around it) is off limits to the public. The only view is through a fence where I took the photo or on the other side of the statue but that view offers less of the quad). The 'tower' isn't actually a tower, it is just a protrusion of the State Apartments wing. I think it provides some framing and context for the left side of the photo though. It isn't possible to get a significantly better vantage point as a member of the public, although I accept your point about the time of day/lighting though. My ticket allows multiple visits in a 12 month period so I may go back to Windsor sometime in the future and see if I can improve on it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No you got it wrong - that's the tough part about text you can't get the emphasis on the words. The point I was making is that there wasn't a good reason for it being taken with backlit condidtions - not that being backlit meant that it was unencyclopeadic. But that aside I don't see how being backlit lighiting ties in with fake skies - ironically or not. Anyway I look forward to your future attempt! --Fir0002 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you expressed it that way previously, so it was difficult to interpret it any differently! Unfortunately I think that due to the UK's position on the planet at this time of year, the sun rises to the left of the frame, moves across the frame and sets to the right of the frame, meaning it will be backlit for the majority of the year! :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 3 - For the composition and 'geometric perfection'. Alvesgaspar 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 3- --Janke | Talk 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

--Nautica Shad e  s  15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)