Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago from Adler Planetarium

Chicago from Adler Planetarium

This image was taken October 1st from Adler Planetarium. This image is a composite of 8 high resolution images. The current image of the Chicago skyline is fuzzy and a little out of date. Chicago is a gorgeous city and has so much to offer.

I spent a lot of time working on alignment and stitching with hopes that it would be more to every one's liking. I also reduced the amount of air and water that occupy the image.

There are 3 new versions available including the one above. The one which I like best has much more air and water. Also I put up a version which eliminates Shedd and Navy Pier.

Old Version

Nominate and support. - Buphoff 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it needs to be in an article. Until then, it's ineligible. howch e ng {chat} 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to curved horizon and stitching errors. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stitching discoloration and misallignment very noticeable. The horizon curvature might be less noticeable if the area of the photo taken up by lake Michican was reduced. However, Image:Chicago_Skyline_at_Sunset.png is already a featured picture and, while a bit blurry, is still better. --S0uj1r0 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very poor stitching. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50% of photo taken up by water. If you had the same series with sharper focus on the buildings and perhaps only 20% water, it might change my vote. See this skyline. --Bridgecross 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too similar to the better-quality Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png (already Featured), so it got dumped from the Chicago article (not by me, I should point out). howch e ng {chat} 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

Comment New Versions Available with better stitching, no curvature, and less water/sky. Buphoff 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. This is much better, but you might want to cut off a bit from the right hand side. NauticaShades^(talk) 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality, though the right hand side could be cut. Glaurung 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should I cut off Navy Pier (last 1/4 of the image) or just the sail boat and empty water? Note: Navy Pier is an important historical landmark and tourist attraction of Chicago.
Support. I like it, this picture fits perfectly in the Chicago article and it shows how beautiful the Chicago skyline is. Also it needs the right part because Navy Pier is a very important part of Chicago and the lake is beautiful.Dbhatt4 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut the sailboât at the very least. I realized that the navy pier is worth keeping. NauticaShades^(talk) 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Stitching errors (for instance the sky isn't a smooth gradient), blown highlights, and it could be sharper. Good picture, but not FP in my opinion. --Tewy 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still. The stitching is too obvious in the sky. howch e ng {chat} 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The new crop is much better, and it's a good photo, but I would like the detail in the buildings to be a little more crisp. Can't do that without re-taking the whole sequence again of course. If the sequence were taken without the water in the first place, zoomed in closer to the skyline, you could pull it off. --Bridgecross 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per stitching. HighInBC 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I took it:) I'll have a better version sometime soon.Buphoff 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShad e s 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]