Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Empire State Building pano.jpg

Image:Empire State Building pano.jpg, featured

•  Info Vertical panorama of the Empire state building. Please note that this image is sharp at over 33MP and was created using exposure blending to show detail at the rather dark street level. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
•  Support -- Dschwen (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The whole image seems to be a little bit hazy, but the details are absolutely amazing. Great work! -- MJJR (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one for the details, even with this overexposed sky... -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but what makes you think the sky is overexposed? --Dschwen (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• maybe overexposed is not the good word because it's probably white... but too white. -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Do not like how the sky looks.--Sensl (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Alvaro qc (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not a fan of cityscapes, but this one has both technical quality and a good composition. FP-worthy IMO. Lycaon (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The technical merit of this picture is off the charts, so that needs no further discussion. But. The only way to actually notice this is to download the 18MB full size version, which <1% of users ever do. For the other >99% this is quite simply boring (esp. for a NYC shot), with a lot of gratuitous detail wasted on midtown office buildings, water tanks, a/c units and excavators. The Brooklyn Bridge is invisible, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and the Statue of Liberty disappear in the haze. The main subject of the picture is lost in the middle distance and is shot from an unfortunate angle (the lower part is hidden, the western facade is a white vertical bar). This picture is like one of those piano pieces that are technically dazzling but leave one cold otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh, with that rationale all pictures you will ever get only show the Empire State Building, or the famous bridges. It was my intention to show what you call boring midtown buildings as well. I don't think they are boring at all! Pardon my naivite but this part of the skyline is almost never pictured, and I spent literally hours on top of the Rockefeller center soaking up all those little details. I thought this composition, which extends the the well known image of the Empire State building and allows the eye to wander further down than most pictures, was kind of exciting. Amazing how opinions may differ... --Dschwen (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There are any number of midtown rooftop pictures, some of which are actually quite compelling. This one here doesn't really know what it wants, it doesn't focus on the ESB, doesn't capture the whole island and doesn't zoom in on a compelling rooftop landscape. Compositionally it's pretty scattershot. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too gray for me and sad looking. --Aktron (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support You apparently missed a shot (blurred part at (1500, 4250)) ;) Benh (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Aktron, too flat, not sharp enough. --Karelj (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sharp enough? That's a joke, right? Just want to clarify, since other voters might take you seriously... --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful!! --Raminus (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a bad shot, but not a particularly difficult one to obtain either. Easier enough to get under better conditions--such as after a rainfall when the air has less pollution, or late in the afternoon when the lighting is better. A fresh snowfall in New York City has a magical effect for a few hours. Try again and surprise us. Durova (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure, just drop me a quick note when to embark on the 14 hour journey to NYC and shell out another $20 to get on top of the Rock. Let's hope the air will be real clear by the time I get up there. Cause we don't want a representative view of NYC, it should be the once in a lifetime crystal clear air day... --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No offense intended. The New Yorkers are having a meetup this weekend; maybe they can take up a collection. (The Staten Island Ferry is a lot cheaper and gives good views of the harbor at night). Best wishes, Durova (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, I give up. This is like suggesting the Grand Canyon at sunset looks nicer maybe someone should take the picture there. --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • And as far as not a particularly difficult one to obtain goes: this shot is a composite of 45(!) pictures and uses exposure blending. I have an even higher resolution version on my HD, but the upload limit kicked in. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing picture. --Lošmi (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK so maybe not the most exciting view when thumbed, still amazing at full res. --Ianare (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Technically flawless, fascinating detail, excellent without doubt. --Dontpanic (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--AngMoKio (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Well, I don't often find panos interesting, but this one kept me busy for a good twenty minutes - I'm in awe at the incredible level of detail! It's a bit grey, but IMO this is a good shot of how New York typically looks - you don't often get picture perfect weather there. It's a city, for god's sake, they tend to look a bit shit when you see them close up :) This image is valuable & interesting, and as such is a perfect FP. naerii 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• BTW:I downloaded the pic, tried a contrast adjustment to fully saturated shadows and found the result quite improved. -- Dontpanic (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent shot, very valuable, but unfortunately much underappreciated. Freedom to share (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Super  Support I can NOT believe anyone could have opposed such a picture. So many great details... Simply wonderful. Muhammad 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support it show a number of interesting items that give it a wow factor, one it shows how the Empire State Building is a dominant feature of the NY Skyline. I gives perspective to size and scale of NY as a city, for someone who's never been thats a bonus. I also see the haze as a plus NY is a city I'd expect to have atmospheric elements. What would be an additional bonus would to see this converted to a line drawing(gimp has a tool to that) and a key made to identify the other points that would also be of interest. Gnangarra 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I have half a mind to oppose this simply due to the fact that I really believe that the photographer lied when he said he did not use a tripod, monopod or other to take the 'graphs. -- carol (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe, and I'm sure I'll never succeed to convince you otherwise. I could show you a set of night time pics taken an hour later, where I screwed up >50% of the shots due to lack of a tripod, which makes me really sad as I will have major problems to assemble an HDR pano as I planned to. I suggest you visit the Rock the next time you make it to NYC and witness the big bulky security guard types who'd shove the a tripod one leg per orifice up (/down?) your body ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel regulating his own daily coffee dosage/intake.... -- carol (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing! --Tintero (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture! Good work! --Lemi15 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Everything (except for one silly oppose) agrees this is technically fine. As for the composition, not everything has to be of an important landmark. I have no issue with this composition. Even at thumbnail level is has some appeal. -- Ram-Man 00:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment: Could you please geocode it? --Kjetil_r 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done --Dschwen (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well done, you even remembered heading (too many users forget about it)! --Kjetil_r 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, excellent! --Kjetil_r 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, --what kind of camera and lens did you use? Rasilon 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Canon EOS 5D with a Sigma 150mm Macro (well, macro is not really relevant here, the lens focuses all the way to infinity and has great optical properties, it is a fixed focal length after all). This image was taken with the same combination, and it shows the lens' sharpness at 100% (no downsampling). --Dschwen (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 23 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. naerii 10:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)