Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/manarola

Manarola


Fascinating-to-examine photo of a civilized town crammed onto a big rock. The terraced heights above the town are staggering, the sheer heights are breathtaking, extremely varied shot with lots to look at. I wish I could vacation there!


 * Nominate and support. - ⁪froth T C  18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lovely picture, but I think you missed the sky. | A ndonic O Talk 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yeah, the sky and the associated glare make it unappealing. It's also leaning (unless that's the way the build houses in italy). Otherwise the quality is ok, slightly soft but what do you expect at 6MP. --Dschwen 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I had assumed it was a cloudy day and the clouds were way out of DOF. You might be right about the glare though. As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell --⁪froth T C  20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell - not true,  simply look at the house windows and house edges, not every house would be built tilted! The tilts are particularly obvious on the 3000 pixel version (so long as your computer doesn't resize it to fit your screen). The clouds were way out of DOF - not true. You have the houses (which are effectively at infinity) in focus so any clouds would in focus. That means that either your choice of exposure could not cope with bright sky or there was fairly solid cloud. So, the tilt and the dead sky kill it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Tilt would be fixable (it's certainly not "impossible to tell"!) but the blown sky is pretty distracting, especially along the horizon where it's bled into the rooftops. It'd make a superb evening shot, I'd have thought, I bet it would look stunning in the sunset (or early morning if it's not facing into the sunset!). This looks like it was taken towards the sun, which makes it near enough impossible to expose for the foreground without blowing out the sky. --YFB ¿  22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reason I said that it would be impossible to tell the tilt is because it's entirely possible that none of the houses are perfectly vertical so there's no point of reference -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And people who are standing are standing like that in real life? Gosh how awkward would that be... -- antilived T 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And the street lights are also tilted at the same random angles? Seems strange that everything is tilted at basically the same angle. Either they were sloppy builders but everything coincidentally started leaning the same way, or we can safely assume the camera was simply tilted at that angle and correct it! ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Faded colors, blown sky. Fascinating location though. --Bridgecross 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No one has mentioned the obvious feature that indicates tilt. While the houses may not be built perfectly, certainly the horizon on the far right should be horizontal.  Michael Connor 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's about one pixel off vertically for that entire stretch of horizon --⁪froth T C  14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the horizon slope is obvious to the eye (no matter how few pixels it is). The largest version of this pic has to be looked at to see the slope. Well done, Michael, for spotting that horizon, I hadn't! - Adrian Pingstone 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The blown sky and glare are much too distracting. Nautica Shad e  s  15:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice picture, but I agree about the tilt and the blown sky, and I'm not normally one to cry blown highlights. Terri G 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)