Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hemispheric

The Hemispheric in Valencia, Spain
Alternate 1 (Twilight)
Alternate 2 (NYE)
Reason
A previous image was nominated here recently but failed due to a lack of image quality and it was suggested that I attempt to take a better shot. As I was in Valencia for the New Year, the site was actually not as easy to photograph as it would normally be as there was fireworks scaffolding and decking on top of the water for ice skating on the other side (which is the view the previous nominee had) so I was not able to duplicate the shot. However, I think this view is still aesthetically pleasing and worth a nomination. I took two other images (here, taken the day after the New Year and here taken one hour before midnight on NYE) but I think the nominated image is the best of the set. It is a 2 x 6 segment panorama with very high resolution and sharpness.
Articles this image appears in
Valencia, Spain
Creator
User:Diliff
Nominator
Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
  • Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support any and all Incredible clarity, and perfect quality. An instant wallpaper; I'll do that now. :-) |
    Talk | Sign Here 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support original - there are some amazing textures in there. You certainly have the magic touch Diliff. Debivort 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wow. Tiny nitpick, but is it possible to fix the moire on the horizontal bars to the bottom right? —Dgiest c 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not particularly easy, no. ;-) I could attempt a new stitch with higher native resolution (takes a really long time at full res - 12 * 13 megapixel 16-bit uncompressed TIFFs don't like being manipulated much) and then downsample to see if that fixes it... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhhh may I ask why are you using 16bit? --antilivedT | C | G 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main reason is that it minimises posterization when the segments are blended together. I find that, particularly when I use JPGs but also 8 bit TIFFs, there is a bit more posterization, particularly in the sky. When you have a detailed scene, posterization is less visible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Weak oppose on the new years version because while it is visually stunning, it has lower encyclopedic value for its subject. —Dgiest c 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Support great clarity and exposure. One nitpick though, there is a bananna-shaped dust speckle repeated throughout the picture (noticed it 3 times and it has a little sister dust). Best seen in the sky to the very right above the fourth arc from the right (at full size). --Dschwen 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grr. Yeah, I see them. The dust specs in the sky are easy to get rid of but the ones embedded in the roof is a bit trickier. I'll have a go now. OK, done. Normally I do upload a new file but this correction is so minor I'll just overwrite the original. You may have to refresh to see the dust removal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm hitting that refresh button to the wazoo... ...I'll try again tomorrow. Night! --Dschwen 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, but for some reason now the resolution is cut in half, despite the image page still stating the original size. !? --Dschwen 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks ok to me... I just removed the dust from the original TIFF file in Photoshop. Hadn't even closed it yet so it shouldn't have lost any quality from reprocessing the JPG. Sounds like a browser/wiki quirk? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one word Wow. — Arjun 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (original). Stunning as usual. --Tewy 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Alternate 1,2 the two night shots, specially NYE Support Original for the current nomination - It's Diliff, of course it's going to be great. But I prefer the two night shots, specially the NYE one. And thank you for taking the time to take these pictures. --Arad 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support version 1. Fantastic! --[[User:207.38.206.107|207.38.206.107]] 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got to remember to sign in! :-) --Tewy 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent pictures, all of them. I especially like the one with the lights i think its more beutiful, but the others are still excellent and are featured picture quality. Voshvoshka 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original only. Two night shots are also pretty, but detail gets lost in the shadows.--Andrew c 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another Diliff masterpiee.
    Noclip 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Original now that's high resolution... --antilivedT | C | G 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Was the sky cropped on the first two? ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not significantly, no. The first two are panoramas so there were some segments that were a little lower in the sky than others. Since that meant there was a blank spot in parts of the sky, I had to crop some of the sky from the other segments to hide those blanks. Nothing too substantial though, standard practise for panoramic stitching. The only reason I included so much sky in the third one was to capture all of the spotlight beams. That shot was not so much a photo of the building than a photo of the scene. It is also much lower resolution because it was a single frame as the lights were continuously moving and stitching would be impossible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original this one is timed nicely to highlight the evening lighting effects but at the same time shows excellent architectural detail which can be fully appreciated at maximum resolution--Melburnian 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original. The alternate images have disturbing water reflections, and the NYE one has lights which damage this picture's encyclopedic value. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question In the original picture, what are those blue "worms" inside the dome (in the horizontal median, a little to the right from the middle)? They look like neon lights but might be artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're definitely neon lights. Remember that the structure is mostly glass. You can see them (to a lesser degree and with more distortion) in the alternate 1 image, but shifted further to the right as they weren't taken from exactly the same point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original and alternate 1 enough said -Wutschwlllm 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support all absolutely jaw-dropping -Noraad 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Fantastic pictures! I really like the reflection of the night image... wow! --Tobyw87 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hachy machy! Those are incredible images. I'm just piling on the support, here. All of the pictures (original and alternates) satisfy all criteria of WP:WIAFP. -- Kicking222 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support originial - amazing resolution and clarity. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original I think that this is one of the very best picture ever to be on Wikipedia and has no doubt of becoming a featured picture. Why1991 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Original only The others are clearly inferior (although that certainly is a relative concept when judging a high quality set such as this!) --Fir0002 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Original Only The original is the best of the 3. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great quality and encyclopedic view. All in all a perfect shot. NauticaShades 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support all — Wow, usually we have a single poor photo nominated, and then even worse alternate versions. But THREE great photos in one nom? Well done! ♠ SG →Talk 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Alternate 2: The completely flat, black water and sky destroy the sense of scale. It ends up looking tiny in that version. Support the other two.--
    SeizureDog 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support original. Beautiful structure, great photograph. TimVickers 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original. Well-taken pro pic. - Darwinek 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support original. Encyclopedic, clear, high quality, this has it all. And beautiful too. The others have some detail lacking, but the original is fantastic. - Goyston (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. beautiful as per above —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs
    ).

Promoted Image:Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg Raven4x4x 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hemispheric_-_Valencia,_Spain_-_Jan_2007.jpg&oldid=1057751895"