Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg

Reason

(Self nomination) This image depicts it subject well, allowing you to see the intricate detail on the building including the coat of arms and several statues including a

Captain George Vancouver at the top. No other image

on Wikipedia captures this building properly due to the wide angle(90 degrees+) one must use to photograph the building due to obstructions(trees and a statue of Queen Victoria prevent you from going further back). Oh and by the way, the domes on the side are actually titled in real life, check the ledge below the domes to see that it is level.

The image was constructed by taking 3 different exposures at 20 different angles. I used HDR and tone mapping to combine the sets of three into uniform exposures, then combined the 20 tone mapped images into a mosaic. At total of 60 image were used to create this picture.

Articles this image appears in

37th Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, British Columbia Parliament Buildings, Francis Rattenbury

Creator

User:H

• Support as nominator —
  ^(H) 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Excellent image quality, the mosaic definitely paid off. I'm not sure whether HDR was necessary, but at least it seems to be a subtle effect :-). The only beef I have with the image is the uneven sky. An earlier nomination of me was shot down for less (my pic had a monotonous smooth gradient (which was almost compensated for in an edit (which apparently still was not enough for some voters (which upset me quite a bit back then (causing me to withdraw the nomination (yes I'm drama queen...))))), yours has a varying oscillating brightnesses. --Dschwen 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I confess, I made a mistake. I used a polarizing filter, and the different shots at different angles were filtered differently. I tried to match the images in post production as best I could, but there is still unevenness. If this ends up being a deal breaker I will just have to go out and shoot them again. The moral of the story is "don't use a polarizing filter for a multi-angle composite shot series".
  ^(H) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - great image, very useful, the uneven sky is trivial. Stevage 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful pano, only problem is that it is so large that some browsers on comps with inadequate memory might not open it directly. A resize to perhaps 7000 pixels would almost certainly solve this. Also, with some judicious editing, the sky color can be repaired although I agree with the others; when viewing the full sized image, this is not annoying at all. Talshiarr 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Great picture. The only thing bugging me is the uneven sky mentioned above. -Wutschwlllm 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It is a great picture, but considering how easy it is for you to do better without a polarizer... well... sorry Ryan ;) -- KirinX 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will most likely redo this image eventually even if it passes, the sky bugs me too. For those looking for faults, the fountain is also not centered as it should be hehe.
  ^(H) 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment No need to reshoot, just use smartblend instead of enblend and it will fix the luminance discrepancies.
  Noclip 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What software are you referring to, I use
  ^(H) 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Aha! I have found it, I will try it out immediately.
  ^(H) 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hmm, the plugin gave an error "Pixel formats must be the same", but all the source images are the same pixel format, RGB16. I used the internal ptgui blender for the current image, I will try enblend.
  ^(H) 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sigh, the enblend plugin just crashes. It seems the plugin blenders don't like the 16 bit tiff source files.
  ^(H) 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I got the Smartblend plugin to work by disabling the yoff and xoff parameters. But the blending is not better.
  ^(H) 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support -per nom -Nelro 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exquisite detail; feels like I am standing right there. The sky is not too bothersome and in my opinion does not degrade the image. I think that the finishing touch would be a pearl white horse (a bit like this
  ^talk 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That horse is grey. Unfortunately horses are not allowed on the grounds, something about tearing up the lawn and fertilizing out of season.
  ^(H) 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ah, must be some gimmick to put off tourists horses - I guess we could always call Napoleon and his white/grey horse, I am sure he wouldn't mind.
  ^talk 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Ironic that it didn't pass Commons Quality Image nomination, yet it seems on its way to passing FPC. Cacophony 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No no, that was in reference to the previous revision of that image on the commons, this one. See the date of the review and the upload times of the revisions.
  ^(H) 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• weak support Fantastic detail, however the difference in sky brightness is very distracting. I would think someone with photoshop skills could fix this and it would be on its was to FP right quick.--Analogue Kid 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't bring myself to an oppose. This image is just exploding with details. Circeus 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Excellent image. Acalamari 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was going to nominated this myself.Bewareofdog 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I went ahead and edited the image to lighten up the dark areas of sky a little bit. Not completely, because otherwise the sky would look way too flat. ♠ SG →Talk 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good edit, but you will see it did introduce some artifacts to the face of the gold statue at the top. Also the domes are given artifacts in areas. I had similar problems while trying to remove the band of darkness, it was much worse before I did what I did.
  ^(H) 05:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's because I was way too lazy to mask out the buildings properly when applying the new sky layer, so part of the sky (at approximately 0 to 30% opacity) has gone over tiny areas like that. It could be fixed by cutting out the affected sections and replacing them with the originals. I'll get around to it later today. ♠ SG →Talk 11:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit or original? Please indicate which. Moving down for further input. MER-C 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the edit, I say use the original; I kind of screwed up the edit. Actually, keep this open for another day or so. If I don't (or anyone else) upload a better version by then, just promote the original. ♠ SG →Talk 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sky can be fixed, but the current edit available has damage to the building as a result of the edit. I suggest either waiting for an edit that does not damage the subject or go with the original. I would do it myself but I have no idea how SG got such a nice effect on the sky.

^(H) 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Promoted Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg MER-C 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]