Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atlantis Paradise Island Royal Towers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 02:42:04 (UTC)

Support as nominator --WPPilot 02:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Not straight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you suggest that I skew it? 'WPPilot (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the photo, in Photo shop the horizon is level, perhaps it is a optical distortion from the aperture and short lens..WPPilot (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your verticals, not simply the horizon. That being said, the horizon is not exactly straight either, by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The tilt isn't that concerning to me (I think there's a slight perspective tilt, with buildings leaning inwards due to tilting the camera upwards slightly), but bigger problems for me are that the exposure just isn't very good (would have been better to take it earlier in the evening when there was some residual glow in the sky to fill the shadows with more detail, and to avoid overexposure of the building lighting), and there's an overall softness of the image that I've also noticed in WPPilot's aerial images. Not sure if the same lens was used but it's noticeable to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do have (on my computer) other versions of the nominated photo that I took with 4 different lens. I will upload another version after the gym. For the most part my aerial photos are shot now on Leica or Nikon. On Nikon I use prime lenses and I have a lot of them. ECIF on the photo I posted shows it was a wide angle lens (15mm). When doing the aerial photos I am also flying the plane that creates a lot of harmonic vibration, so I could see it resulting in a little "softness" as you referred to it, but that night shot was set on a tripod, with a brand new Nikon D 7100 in aperture priority mode with a remote shutter release. My Lens selections proved me with no more the F1.8 so I have plenty of glass. --WPPilot 15:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)(talk)
You're right that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable explanation for the softness in this image, and yet, there it is. It could be exacerbated by the high(ish) ISO you used. Given you had the camera set up on a tripod, there was no need to bump up the ISO above 100. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It's a fairly good and an interesting photo when viewed in larger size, but at this res. detail is lost. As usual, my suggestion is crop tighter — the dark foreground below the octagonal structure, and the dark or black sky (including left & right sides of frame) add zero visual interest, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt., although it could be cropped further on on the right, leaving out the bldg. with the four lights. Sca (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find myself squinting, wishing it was brighter so I can see the details of this building and the grounds. I do like the framing, and the quality is acceptable, but I really believe the night shot is not very encyclopaedic. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This facility operates 24/7 with its casino and other activities. This view is far more spectacular then the same view, during daylight hours as you can see in the daylight photo taken from the same location. HERE--WPPilot 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)talk

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]