Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano

Willis Tower upward pano

 * Reason::This is a featured picture on commons and German Wikipedia. It is also a quality image on commons.  Despite being a little light in terms of EV, it represents a masterfully stitched panorama.  It had quite a bit of support at Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano
 * Articles this image appears in:Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) Wacker Drive
 * Creator:Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It is an unusual perspective of a particular aspect of this building, however executed at high quality and thus has a solid place in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a bit rushy to straight support and I amended my position to weak support. Diliff is right that EV is key criteria for VP and that this image is not outstanding in the usual sense EV is judged at FP. However to clarify the reason I still tend to support it as a VP, is that it provides a different perspective on the building and thus contributes to a plurality of views on Wikipedia, which I consider to have a significant educational value. --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless I've misinterpreted the criteria here, my understanding is that the EV requirement is roughly as strict as FPC, but the technical requirements are less stringent. The problem with this image, for me, is that it is the EV that is somewhat low because of the akward projection. The buildings and the surrounds don't bow like that and even though a viewer would likely be aware of this, it is hard to imagine what the building really does look like. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is your complaint about the projections related to the EV, especially since its highest EV is in an the article showing the building from many perspectives. In its highest EV use it shows the builing from an alternative perspective so it does not cause a problem of imagining what the building really does look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer a massive tilt perspective correction to make the lines in the Tower appear straight up and down?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'd prefer a photo taken from further away so that you wouldn't need massive tilt correction to fix the perspective. ;-) Just because it's an 'alternative' perspective, doesn't make it a great image to illustrate the subject IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can not get anything much further away to capture anything similar to this. Wacker Drive has tall buildings (one of which is visible in this photo) lining the other side of the street.  In order to show the Wacker Drive address plate, you would are very limited.  This is an upwards pano, which has its artistic merits.  It is a difficult DOF shot from my limited photographical knowledge.  This image shows the building from Wacker Drive, which is basically different subject matter than its place in the skyline like the other VPC below.  The fact that it is the same building and could be shot in a manner similar to other buildings misses the whole point of showing what it looks like from its base. For what it is (an upwards pano) it is among the finest illustrations that WP has to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying (although I think calling it a 'difficult DOF shot' does show your limited photographical knowledge - with that sort of angle of view, DOF isn't likely to be much of an issue), but that doesn't change the fact that the image's projection makes it confusing and misleading. Let me rephrase. Just because it's the best way to show the building at street level, doesn't automatically give it sufficient EV for FPC and VPC. Some subjects are more difficult to illustrate than others, but difficulty alone doesn't qualify it IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it might unfortunately be hard to belive: The building pretty much looks like this. The projection does it justice. I've benn there, I saw it. --Dschwen 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the buildings all lean inwards with a curve when you look upwards though. ;-) I know all projections involve spacial compromises, but our eyes/mind can visualise the reality of some projections better than others, and IMO this isn't one of them. But my point is that even if it did look like this image from this specific viewpoint, it's still not an ideal way to illustrate the building. I don't think it's superior to an image taken from further back, showing the shape/size of the building with better context and less distortion. I prefer this image of yours for that reason, although I'd still have to think hard about whether I'd support it here or at FPC. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone even nominates it... Anyhow, some distortions in the periphery are not a major problem. The main subject is reproduced pretty well. So I support if I may. --Dschwen 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support If you've stood at the base of one of these supertall skyscrapers, the real perspective actually can be confusing and disorienting, almost vertigo-inducing, as the top of the building is so far away you lose context with its surroundings. So the weakness of the projection is really a strength, in recreating the experience of being there.  I realize in reality the buildings at the sides wouldn't curve as in this stitched projection, but the main subject looks accurate enough. And I reiterate even if a more distant vantage point would be a more ideal illustration, that doesn't mean this viewpoint has no EV.  Different perspectives should be possible and worthwhile.  Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose We have this, this, and quite a few more that illustrate the subject with more EV than this distorted image. — raeky ( talk 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too wonky, to use a technical term. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)