Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool 2

Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 08:19:43 (UTC)

Reason: After a reshoot, this was so favorably reviewed at WP:VPC that I thought I would give it a shot here.
Articles in which this image appears: Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Alfred Caldwell
Lincoln Park, Chicago
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator: nominator

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harsh lighting is the issue here. EXIF says 12:08, so certainly close to worst case. This has led to blown highlights on the terraced stones and the pond lilies. Try magic hour or a day with light to medium cloud cover, and make sure to use more moderate exposure settings. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PLW on lighting but mainly due to what appears to be tilt... I find my head tilting to correct the lines as everything seems to be tilted to the right... Certainly the horizontal slabs in the "hut" appear to not be horizontal... gazhiley.co.uk 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony actually corrected the tilt in an edit but unfortunately the incorrect version was promoted to VP. See Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool. Jujutacular ^talk 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can this nom not be re-done using the edited version then? I cab't see this being promoted with the tilt... gazhiley.co.uk 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can the proper promotion be made?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have swapped out the image in all the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Guys, the one most people voted in favor of was SSE, Jujutacular and Amphy were the only 2/6 that suggested or voted on the correction. --I'ḏ ♥One 18:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That nom was confusing and left in the further consideration necessary class without clarification on the further consideration necessary. If the thing does not pass here at FPC, I think that VPC should be reopened to consider which image is promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want to, I'm not really sure of the policy in that but, honestly it would be nice to move on from this one pic, we've been dealing with it for like 2 months now. --I'ḏ ♥One 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but we should get the right one promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not up to me, the consensus was for the original SSE, not your edit. I guess if you reopen it contact the voters and ask them to specify which they like better, consider me in support of whichever the consensus leans to. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So I have to nominate the rotated and cropped version to replace the current VPC as a new nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok the deed is done, I hope no one minds. --I'ḏ ♥One 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is pretty bad, I'd probably lean towards an overcast day, and a polariser would help saturate the colours if you have one. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]