Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg

Big Ben on blue sky

Reason: A very similar photo to this was originally featured but I was never 100% happy with the sky, as it was a bit overcast and hazy, so I endeavoured to take a new photo at some point. Well, its been sitting in my collection for 9 months now and I've just got around to stitching it and fine tuning it. The angle is slightly different (better?), as the last one was taken from a slight angle, and the tower appeared to lean. This one still has the issue, but as a photographer you're quite limited in where you can take a photo, and I think this is close enough. I'm proposing to de-list and replace the old FP if this one passes (either automatically or by nominating it for de-listing, whichever procedure dictates). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Secular Icon
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The slight tilt and the blurry tree in the foreground are a little distracting, but otherwise it's gorgeous. Definitely makes the original seem a bit drab. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might wish for a bit more panorama of Westminster Palace to the right, and a bit more view downward, but I can't deny that what we do see is a fantastically good image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope the old one won't just be delisted automatically; I think I like it a bit more than this one. Both are superb, but I think the original has a better angle (getting to see another side of the tower and removing that unsightly tree from the lower left corner), and the shadows just look better, softer somehow. I certainly wouldn't oppose this, but I do prefer the other one. Thegreenj 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that I mind the overcast sky in the original shot; it is London, after all. But this one is so sharp, great detail. I agree that tree is distracting, but that's small potatoes, certainly no reason to oppose IMHO. faithless (^speak) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose - I'm with Thegreenj, the other one has a better composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too small, and noisy even at that size. Dengero (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Disregard and Weak Support There were 4 other windows open and I was looking at the wrong picture before, sorry. But weak support anyway mainly because I think there's no need to replace/upload the new one. Dengero (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Small and noisy? Are you familiar with the guidelines?? This image is 2500 × 4986 in resolution (almost 5 times the minimum and larger than the vast majority of images submitted here), and emphatically almost noise-free. It was taken with a Canon 5D, renown for being one of the least noisy digital SLRs on the planet, and has been processed with noise reduction software. Please point out the noise you're refering to. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lol, same way my tugboat nom is blurry and needs sharpening. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect, brilliant quality. @Dengero - er, wut? This image is massive and has no noise whatsoever. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have almost the same Existing FP. Do we really need the two of them? I'd say, if Diliff (the creator of both images) likes his second version better, he could nominate the first one for delisting, and after, and if it gets delisted, renominate the new image.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a silly reason to oppose. I don't see any reason why we can't image AFTER this one is successful. I agree, we don't need two FPs, but what if I requested a delisting of the first one and people supported it on the proviso that the second one replace it, and then the second one was not promoted to FP? It makes far more sense this way. I'd like to see you provide a legitimate reason for opposition to this specific image, as I stated quite clearly that I'd be happy to have only one of them as FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason is in this very nomination. Have you read the comment from User:Thegreenj? He/she likes the first image better. To answer your question about what happens, if you requested a delisting of the first one and people supported it on the proviso that the second one replace it, and then the second one was not promoted to FP,it is going to be very hard on all of us, but I hope we'll survive. On the other hand may I please ask you, what happens, if the second image gets promoted and the first one will not get delisted? May I please also ask you do not use a word "silly", while talking about the reason of my oppose. I do not find it to be civil and/or polite.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just noticed that user:Alvesgaspar likes the first vesion better too.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're still being silly though, and if I think you are, I will say so. Just because someone else thinks something, it doesn't mean you don't have to explain your reasons for opposing. Others have their own vote and you have yours, and you have to provide your reasons, even if just to say you agree with them, but you still haven't provided your own reasons. You've only alluded to Thegreenj and Alvesgaspar's reasons for opposing, without actually stating yours. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        May I please ask you once again to
        stop making personal comments/attacks and to stop being uncivil Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Look, saying your reason for opposition is silly is not a 'personal attack'. I'm being slightly less than courteous mainly because you frustrate the heck out of me! ;-) And can I ask that you keep some semblance of order by using intents correctly? I'm having to place all over the place in reply to you because you're inserting them randomly and making it very confusing to follow. :-) If you want to reply to something I've said, put it directly below and intent it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Here' what you said: "You're still being silly though, and if I think you are, I will say so" and IMO it is a
        a personal attack has occured.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        And for the record, the two people you mentioned who prefer the other image haven't actually opposed this nomination. It has been discussion and nothing more. There are more than two people who DO support the image, however, so it isn't as though the opposition is overwhelming. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe I spelled out the reason of my opposing few times already. Let me repeat it once again: IMO if the second image gets promoted and the first image does not get delisted we would have one (or maybe even two) FP images too many.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then let me spell it out again for you: I don't think that is not a valid reason for opposition. You should be able to provide a reason for opposition to this image in isolation and in relation to the guidelines, not just because you don't want two FPs of the same object. I'm quite confident we'll be able to ensure that only one remains FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I gave the reason, which is valid IMO. Please delist Existing FP and I'll be the first one to support the current nomination even after you, Diliff, were so uncivil towad me.Until then I oppose the current nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        May I please also ask you do not edit my contributions. You know what I'm talking about. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        *Slaps forehead*. Argh, you're still replying in random locations and you've placed the wrong image in there now, in two different locations. OK, since you've asked so nicely, I will leave it there so everyone can see how silly you still are. ;-) But I will reserve the right to edit the formatting your contributions (not content) when it aids the flow and doesn't detract of the discussion, which is what I did originally. This is common sense and I did not try to hide what I did - I disclosed it fully in the edit summary. Anyway, note to closer: could you please note my issues with Mbz1's opposition when closing this nomination? Thanks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        May I please ask you once again to
        stop making personal comments/attacks and to stop being uncivil Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Geeeeeeez, stop it already. I'd be thinking twice before wagging the WP:UNCIVIL and WP:ATTACK fingers... --Dschwen 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        May I please ask you instead of "thinking twice" review civility and
        personal comments/attacks pages? May I please also ask you to stop giving me orders? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Honestly, Mbz1. You're the one barking orders through a thinly veiled 'request'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<restart indent> May I please ask you once again to:

1. Place indents in the correct location as you have made this page extremely messy as a result.

2. Stop being so sensitive as I was criticising your actions and decisions, not you as a person.

3. Provide a reason for opposition to this image according to the criteria, not your opinion on how you think the nomination/denomination process should occur.

Thank you in advance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I stated the oppose reason, which is a valid one IMO.criteria # 3 states :"Is among Wikipedia's best work." Some people might like your first image better, other might like better the second one. Wich one is the best for the given subject? Few weeks ago I saw a delist nominatin (cannot find it now) which was actually delist/replace nomination. I'm not sure, if it is a valid option at the present time, but I believe it should be an option for such situations. In one of your comments you said: "Anyway, note to closer: could you please note my issues with Mbz1's opposition when closing this nomination". I believe it is what you should have started with. May I please ask the closer, if he/she belives that the reason for my oppose is invalid, please disregard my vote. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've attempted to organise the formatting so it's easier to read and moved the pictures of the existing FP to the right hand side.
    Pstuart84 Talk 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Thanks, but watch out, Mbz1 won't be happy that you've removed her images in the body of text as she complained of me doing the same. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, Pstuart84. You've done a great job by posting two big images side by side.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Great photo but I prefer the very similar previously featured pucture (mentioned and displayed above) which I think has much more detail and a better angle (the tower looks a bit 2-D in this one). I also find the colour of the sky quite harsh around the area of the clock face - although that could just be personal preference/my moniter settings. It seems logical that only one of them should be used in articles as they are so similar so it doesn't seem possible that they could both meet criteria 5. Guest9999 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about the use of the image in

here. Guest9999 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Support - per nomination. Seems preferable to the one already promoted. Rudget . 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The angle is better on this one. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that blue skies are indeed pretty the tower comes out worse in the new version. First of all the dead frontal perspective is not preferable to original slanted view IMO. Secondly the light, seems to come from pretty much behind the camera, which makes the tower look flat. All the pretty masonry relief work is almost invisible. Don't get me wrong, this probably is a 90% picture competing with 95% picture, but for the reasons I pointed out it does not represent Wikipedias best work (in the field of Big Ben pictures ;-) ). And what really tips the scale toward an oppose is that despite my fondness of blue skies I would't want to see only fair weather pictures among the FPs (yeah, take that last reason with a grain of salt). --Dschwen 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your comments on the pretty masonry, I uploaded this comparison

(apologies for anything my quick cut and paste did to the image) which I think it shows pretty clearly the original image does show greater detail. Guest9999 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comparing the two - now that it has been brought up - the masonry looks too flat in the new proposal. In the FP, you can clearly see the relief. For this reason, enc is lower in the new one. I don't care so much about the sky - it's the building that matters. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new one is nice but I think the old one provides better resolution of the stonework. However my comment relates to the time. Would it not be nice if the clock showed the hour or a time with some significance that an editor could pick up on rather than a random disposition of the hands. I know this means waiting for the right moment but I think it is worth it. Motmit (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
'Oppose' Per Guest9999 --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that your main complaint of the proposed replacement is the 'flat' view of the tower, but many of you have prefered the vibrancy of it over the original, I've taken it on board and decided to go back to the RAW files and re-process it, as looking at it again, I can see plenty of room for improvement without messing with the accuracy, as I think the sky was actually not quite as dull in the original as it seems (poor processing in the first place on my part, I think). I'm going to upload a new version as a third candidate (as I said, using the original's RAW files), and see what you think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, here we go. A re-processed version of the existing FP. Comparing this to the original FP, this is far more accurate in my opinion. I originally assumed that I processed it properly in the first place but looking back on it, I can't believe how badly I messed it up. The colours are far more accurate now (compare the white balance on the clock face, for starters), and the sky is no longer dull (I didn't have to pull any fancy tricks to do this either, just got the white balance and exposure right and a little squeeze on the saturation trigger). The tower itself is also more accurate (I think). Hopefully this is the one we can all agree on. I suppose we can always hope. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, with this many votes already cast, should this nom be closed and a new one created? Or perhaps archive the discussion and just bring it back to the top of the page? Any ideas? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The blue sky isn't enough to overcome the loss of texture to the facade, and the angle of the earlier photo gives a better view of the dimensions of the structure--with the side walls partly visible. Both are very good photographs, but I prefer the current FP. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you support what I've designated Option 3, which is a reprocessing of the existing FP? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do like that. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All are wonderful pictures, but I prefer the current FP, the reprocessed current FP is second, and the nominated image third. The masonry detail is best in the current FP, and I like the tilted angle better, as well. The reason I don't like reprocessed current FP is that some of the detail in the gold is missing. Thanks for nominating the new one, though, Diliff. I understand why you weren't happy with the sky, but I actually prefer the sky in the original. - Enuja (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Since I definitely prefer Option 3, the cleared-up edit of the current FP - I think that Diliff would be entirely within his rights to upload that edit over the original, preserving its FP status. Only contrast and color balance are changed, the picture is the same... --Janke | Talk 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any, but with a preference for the already featured one. I'm not so sure the new edit of the existing FP is so much more accurate. I like the warm tones of the old one (personal tastes). Should the white color of the clock really be a white balance reference ? Wasn't lighting actually a bit warm ? . Also, the most recent shot doesn't show as much details. Still, I think they are all great pictures. -- Blieusong (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a current FP or the edit of the current FP because IMO they show much more details than the nominated image. All the images are great and involve a huge amount of work.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the existing FP - it has more detail. The new one is tilted and some details are washed out in the bright sunshine. The cleaned up existing FP is the best of the three. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 3. the detials are really good. Yahel Guhan 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 3 (to replace existing version) per general reasoning above and Diliff's statement. --jjron (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentHi, Diliff, I am not asking who was being silly, but may I please ask you who was right? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I please ask you what you mean? Right about what? There were so many issues in question in this nomination that I haven't got a clue what you're referring to! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that IMO I was right that in such situations (where the images are almost the same) the current FP and the nominated image should be discussed and voted at the same place and at same time.I have one more question, but I put it to your talk page.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I love the lighting on the original, don't see any reason to change it :D\=< (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the party, I Support option 3 over the original; much, much better "development". --mikaul^talk 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+12/-8) for original, no consensus for option 3 --Malachirality (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]