Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal 2012.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2012 at 04:30:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, resolution of a well known structure. Image has been stable in the article for a few months now

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal, Agra, Tourism in India ...

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We already have a FP of the Taj Mahal, File:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg. Maybe a delist and replace would be better. Spongie555 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go on with nomination. If this passes, we can delist the older one --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it worked like that. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As one of the most photographed buildings in the world, this isn't as remarkable as it needs to be IMO. It looks nice and crisp at 100%, but it should do given how heavily downsampled this 9MP appears to be. The alignment and symmetry is very good, though I'd crop a little off the left to remove that bit of tree and balance it. The outer towers appear slightly distorted (e.g., the brickwork horizontals aren't horizontal) which may be a result of the wide-angle of view or perhaps they really are a little bit wonky. That's a minor point. However, the sky is boring and pale, the midday lighting far from flattering, and the water feature is horrible brown. Compare the best images online, which are taken in dusk or dawn light (quieter too), perhaps with atmospheric mist or with clouds adding interest to the sky, or at least a rich blue sky, and, most spectacularly, with a gloriously symmetrical reflection of the building in the still clean water. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blieusong (below) suggests comparing what is on wiki rather than just elsewhere. Looking at Category:South side of the Taj Mahal:

• File:Agra0596b.jpg has lovely dusk lighting and reflection.
• File:Morning view of the Taj Mahal, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India.jpg has lovely morning light and reflection.
• File:Agra01.jpg has golden light and reflection.
• File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0009.JPG captures the 3-d convex and concave.
• File:Monsoon in india.jpg has a dramatic sky and lighting.
• File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG has excellent symmetry reflected in the still water.
• File:Taj Mahal Front.JPG has a good but not perfect reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal of Shah Jahan.jpg has lovely lighting and reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India-23Feb2007.jpg captures it from another side, with reflection in the river.
• File:Taj Mahal reflection on Yamuna river, Agra.jpg shows the scope for artistic opportunities.

Many of those are much more atmospheric pictures with more interesting composition and take advantage of the water feature (rather than it looking like a health hazard). But they often don't stand close scrutiny at 100%. They aren't stitched downsized images from a professional DSLR. They show what any tourist can do with a compact camera. They have other flaws too, though many look great at screen size. So compare File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg for a photograph of just the building. That 37MP image is over 2x larger, is just as sharp, and shows much more detail (one can see the mesh of the door "windows", the people's faces, etc). The lighting much better too. There's no distortion of the towers. I think that is a far finer picture of the building itself. The above also shows the gardens but really doesn't do them justice, with the brown water. Colin°^Talk 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Every picture has its benefit over others (though some are questionable to me) but overall the current candidate is still what wiki has best in stock to me (as far as I have looked). I'm also not fan of the stitching + downsampling combo in the spirit, but who cares? The result is good, and that's what we review (we review more results than what hardware + process was used right, do we?). Last picture is nice, though without context, and less properly centered. Feel free to nominate... You are a bit overrating the distortion issue, which comes with every wide enough view, but frankly, it's not that big a deal!! A picture of the London metro station of yours has much more distortions... (But I like it a lot!) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing the stitching + downsampling where there's no real loss of detail -- it does produce very nice results. I said the distortion was a minor issue: sometimes it is worth pointing these things out in case it can be fixed. The other picture managed to achieve a distortion-free result, but I've seen others too with the same problem. My main issue is that this is what many people regard as one of the wonders of the world, taken at what most scenic photographers regard as the worst time of the day, and rather than the water feature adding wonderfully to the scene, it repulses. I linked pictures above not simply to compare one image against another, but to show that a passing tourist with a compact camera can take a more beautiful picture. This isn't the sort of scene where you need to hike up a mountain and camp out in the snow to achieve. It isn't an obscure beetle but the subject of tens of millions of photographs (Google Image). For the article lead, I'd say File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG, a picture taken 10 years ago and missing the outer towers, is a far more beautiful image, though it doesn't reward examination. We all have our own tastes. So let's see where others vote. Colin°^Talk 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Colin
  talk 02:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support First it appears downsampled. But resolution is big enough for most uses I can think of. The numerous tourists are not so welcome to me either, but I guess this is how a very famous iconic touristy place will look most of the time. I believe to have spotted a tiny stitch error on the left bottom part of the building. But overall, it's detailed, nicely exposed, centered and (presumably) stitched. Since Colin compares this work with what can be found elsewhere, this may not be best material on the subject, but it seems to be among the best we can find on wiki. And to me, it's very attractive. Better that than a not so attractive depiction of a subject, even though it's best material we can found on it (cf. bug nom below). - Blieusong (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for talking sense unlike some reviewers here --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People are strolling in FP! Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you have other reasons for ur oppose ;-) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Former picture is better. The lighning is not so great and the angle not so centric.--
  ✔) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose The sky looks off with parts blue and others like they have smoke. Not happy about the minaret distortions either.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant oppose due to the minaret distortions mentioned by Saffron Blaze. It's a pity because I appreciate the level of detail in this pic. Pine^✉ 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though I claim File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg is the best we have available. (Full disclosure: I helped make some edits, mainly to the color.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Jkadavoor (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]