Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Port Arthur Panorama.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Port Arthur Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 11:24:20
Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)- Info There are some brighter images around of this site, but this one is more realistically exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Very good quality and nice colours for sure, but not very interesting place/composition (at least, not enough for FP to me). This time the sky doesn't save you... By the way, many stitch errors left. Why using so many images to end with so "many" stitching errors ? Benh (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where are the stitching error(s)? or is this sarcasm Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No sarcasm at all. But I quoted "many" because there aren't that many actually. The ones I saw are mainly on the water and on the right side, where you seem to have a blurred picture. Benh (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you had me searching high and low. The right side in the trees is due to the wind I think, it is like that in each individual frame. Borders on the water are probably exagurated due to the wind. The number of frames was so high since I used a telephoto (145mm) in portrait orientiation, which does allow huge resolution but you need enough shots. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to had you peeping ! I'm very picky when it comes to finding stitching errors. I forget this picture is 10000 pixels wide, which is probably worth the effort. Let me a few days, and I may be reconsidering my vote (at lest to a neutral). Benh (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you had me searching high and low. The right side in the trees is due to the wind I think, it is like that in each individual frame. Borders on the water are probably exagurated due to the wind. The number of frames was so high since I used a telephoto (145mm) in portrait orientiation, which does allow huge resolution but you need enough shots. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No sarcasm at all. But I quoted "many" because there aren't that many actually. The ones I saw are mainly on the water and on the right side, where you seem to have a blurred picture. Benh (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where are the stitching error(s)? or is this sarcasm Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Very nice. I assume it was a lot of work to realize this pano. It's a pity that the vertical display detail is 2 tight. A little bit more hills in the background or a slice of the sky would give this nice pano more depht and let the little house on the left more space 2 breath. Maybe a slight change with the crop helps to balance it better --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)- Oppose I do not like images with such exotic ratio of dimensions. --Karelj (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — not perfect, but more than good enough. --Kjetil_r 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Georgez (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Missing wow. Lycaon (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. Good quality and the format fits the content. A sure QI, but the image does not transcend a mere documentary level (i.e. no wow ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- wow should be renamed ASQIBTIDNTAMDL, it would be so much clearer :D Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- SupportJukoFF (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
