Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg

Albert Memorial

Reason: An extreme high resolution image of the south face of the monument, showing almost as much detail as you could want (I said almost!) on a clear, sunny day.
Articles this image appears in: Albert Memorial
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive shot, seems to meet all the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support View the full version-- it's much more impressive than the thumb. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Incredible detail. Pstuart84 Talk 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image ! Bewareofdog 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail and sharpness is amazing. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and realistic Capital photographer (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Xtreme detail. ^8th star 01:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel bad about this, because I requested the picture following an expansion of the article, but is it not very slightly tilted? It looks very slightly off-kilter. I don't think the vertical lines are wrong, more the horizontal ones. More of the steps on the left are shown than on the right, and other things don't quite match up. Maybe it is some optical effect due to the placement of the shadows on the right? I apologise if I am imagining things. Could someone also explain to me the difference in tone of the colours with Image:Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.jpg? Is that purely due to differences in lighting? I personally like the effect the bare trees had on either side in Image:Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.jpg, but then that was January, and this picture was in early May. Maybe if it snows one year... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect it could actually be the monument itself that is not exactly horizontal. Parts of the foundations ARE basically exactly vertical (such as the very bottom step) yet the pillar on the far left side (europe) is tilted slightly. I agree that there might be one or maybe two pixels of tilt across the entire image (this is virtually impossible to get exactly right and it is only through pixel peeping that we can see it at all), but this is a tilt of 0.017% from one edge to the other! As for the difference in tone, it is mainly due to the lighting. The other image was taken in the late afternoon, so it had a warm glow. It isn't really possible to replicate it in this image as warming the image up artificially would affect the colour of the sky negatively. Such is the price you pay for taking photos on a sunny day! Lighting is complicated, with compromises and trade offs no matter what time of day you shoot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, different time of day. Thought it might have been that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've had a closer look, and I think I was imagining things. Possibly the shadows were affecting my perspective. Would still be interested in comments on the colours and the avenue effect of the trees in the other picture. Maybe both could be featured? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well I had written the above reply before I saw this. You're right about the angle from the west side being slightly better, although then you don't get the frontal view showing Albert. I did shoot the same scene from the west side, but I haven't stitched it yet (assumed this one was better, but I can give it a go if you're not convinced). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I predict we will end up with four featured pics, one from each side... (or can you have a set of featured pics?). I can't remember what the background of the other angles were. I know the view from the north has the Royal Albert Hall in the background, but what is there to the west in a view from the east? More trees? One more point - we talked about the shadows before - what do you think would be the optimum time of day and year for this sort of picture? Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you can featured sets, but only in rare cases, like this and this.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well done mosaic photo. It looks very funny on a small scale from the detail the full res version has. Very well done. victorrocha (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per all above. Very nice indeed.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, great detail. Spencer^T♦^C 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a snapsho... ...whoooaaa... ...that's crisp and high res! Great to see such big pics uploaded. Support. --Dschwen 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Wow. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing resolution. —dima /talk/ 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support another awesome pic. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg MER-C 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]