Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Central test.jpg

This image is a stitched panorama of a very difficult to photograph subject. It was done by Diliff (t c). A good photograph of Grand Central Terminal's main concourse was missing from the article for a long time. Given the historic nature and landmark status of the building, this was unfortunate. The GCT main concourse has been the subject of many other photos, but due to the scale of the building and the limited lighting, none has come close to the level of clarity and scale that this image provides.

Take a look at the following list for other attempts at GCT interior photographs. Note how they either only show a portion of the room or are quite dark. None achieve the sense of scale and detail that this image does.

1. Image:Grand Central Terminal Inside New York City Long.jpg
2. Image:Main Concourse in Grand Central Terminal.jpg
3. Image:Grand Central Station1 by bencwright.jpg
4. Image:Grand Central Terminal main concourse.jpg
5. Image:IMG 1499.JPG

• Nominate and support. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Getting this shot right indeed takes a skilled photographer. This photograph has the "right" amount of brightness/color. Sometimes a longer exposure is needed to get that, however with the many people moving around in the concourse (like during rush hour), the people will likely be blurred in the photograph. Not the case with User:Diliff's photograph. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was missing such a high-quality caption of Grand Central Terminal in Wikipedia. The level of detail is OK. Mikeo 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm slightly bothered by the curves caused by the panoramic stitching - I guess the tiles on the floor are in straight lines... (In the recent cathedral picture, the distortion was not so apparent). Is there a rectilinear version, does that have severe distortion of the side walls? --Janke | Talk 17:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with rectilinear panoramas is they only work well when the angle of view is small. When the angle of view is high, the sides are warped dramatically. I'll show you the rectilinear version of it as soon as I stitch one, but I don't think it'll be as pretty. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, done. I still prefer the first image as I don't think curved 'straight' lines are a problem in a panorama such as this, as cylindrical projection allows more of the panorama to be presented in a more managable way. I do understand that it sacrifices architectural accuracy somewhat, but this can't always be helped. You will never be able to create this sort of panorama with architectural accuracy. But if you want to be able to see such a wide angle of view in a meaningful way, I don't know of an alternative. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really like the second one better. It looks like a typical super-wideangle shot, distortion and all. Is there any way of non-linearly compressing the left and right sides inward - that would take care of some of the horizontal elongation? (Admitted, it would introduce some distortion to diagonals, but none to horizontals and verticals.) See my small new example, made manually in only three increments, thus imperfect. --Janke | Talk 09:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good attempt but I don't think that method would survive full size scrutiny. :) I'm not aware of a way of automating that... Anyone else? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just now did it on the full-size image. See Diliff's and my comments below, Feb. 22. --Janke | Talk 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good resolution and level of detail.--
  vineeth 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support either one, slight preference for the first one. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - good pic, and I appreciate the effort made and the relative darkness of the location, but the picture is a bit too dim for my liking; could it be brightened just a little bit? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like that inside. --vaeiou 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I feel like I'm there. And yes, its the picture is dimly lit, but so is the room. I wouldn't try to make it brighter. --dm ^(talk) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never been there, but I've been to
  30th Street Station (Philadelphia), which appears to be similar architecturally, visually, and light-wise - and 30th Street Station is much brighter and more lively than this picture. I think the dimness really weighs this picture down, even if that really is what the setting is like. Ultimately, though, I don't think it's a very eye-catching panorama, and if you're going to sacrifice perspective, I think it should be. Oppose. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Impressive picture, but the station seems to be decked out for Christmas. Also, I'm starting to feel there needs to be more featured pictures of things from outside the english speaking world.--Colle||Talk-- 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't find it that impressive or amazing. chowells 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, image with a high quotient of technical difficulty and proficiency, and it is of a significant subject. I like it a lot. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Titoxd --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3rd version: I did a non-linear compression (still manually, but many more increments) of the full-size rectilinear version, which now has less horizontal distortion - it's now ready to vote on. I didn't like the curved walls & floor in the first version. What say you? --Janke | Talk 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say its a great improvement actually. It looks 'right' in terms of a lack of distortion and the lines are satisfactorily straight. :) I can't see any evidence of it being incremental. Its a shame there isn't (as far as we know?) any way of automating that process. I'll ask around on a panoramic photography forum. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the winning version. Very nicely done. TomStar81 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a near-perfect representation of the interior of an important site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hmmm. - Darwinek 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After the two other versions have been added, I still prefer the original. The third would be acceptable, but I don't like the noticable vertical squishing of the figures. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1st or 3rd version (Jay 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Promoted Image:Grand Central test.jpg Raven4x4x 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]