Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flinders st station

Flinders St Station

Nice image of the iconic station. Night shot removes all the power cables for the trams.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 09:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The picture is a bit busy but I like the illumination of the building and the overall angle. Bonus Onus 12:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Dramatic yet informative lighting. It might benefit from a crop of the left side. --Pharaoh Hound 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm sympathetic, though, because Flinders Street Station is notoriously difficult to photograph due to the tram stop, power poles and tram power cables, but this one is just too messy/unfocused, and, as mentioned, isn't helped by the framing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - very sharp picture, which I like, but very crowded and busy. However, Diliff's comments make it seem like it's a very difficult thing to shoot. So it's a good picture of a good subject, but with unavoidable clutter in between. I'm split. --Golbez 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too busy, and I don't really like the lighting. The historical photo is pretty good. -- bcasterline • talk 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to say the same thing as Diliff. Taking a night shot is a great way of dealing with the overhead cables - they're almost invisible. This image could be touched up, and would IMHO be better off without the headlights on the left, and a tighter crop on the left to remove the Quay West building. For all that, it's a nice photo and it makes me miss home :) Stevage 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The picture was taken too low to the ground, and at a very uninteresting "straight-on" angle. This is just a big picture taken at night by an amateur, while the historical photo is a picture taken by a professional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.87.25 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well that's not particularly fair as I can't access the high area which the historic image was taken to, given half a chance (or even a quarter) I would have loved to have taken this pic from the same position as the historic one. --Fir0002 www 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that as enormously unfair, considering you couldn't even be bothered to log in (if you even have an account). Added to the fact that Fir0002 is most definitely not an amateur. He is one of the best photographers on Wikipedia, with almost 50 featured pictures. If you have something constructive to offer, then fine, but insults like that to one of FPCs most respected contributors are not on. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 10:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and look, you're a vandal as well...—Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 10:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Bcasterline. -- P199 22:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The illumination of the subject is making it difficult to see some important parts of the building. A viewpoint in the middle of the intersection would have been desirable (yet unfeasible). HDR imaging might have helped as well. Mikeo 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not quite sure I like the car headlights - the streaks on the bottom left, and the bright circles on the right. enochlau (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this or a similar shot was up on commons some time ago as well. The night shot would need more dynamic range than your digital camera can handle. I'd suggest reshooting at dusk. Also a little higher vantage point would make the picture more interesting indeed (ladder?, any stores on the opposing side of the street?). --Dschwen 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directly opposite, you have this. This is the view from Flinders St station looking back: Image:Ac.stpauls3.jpg Stevage 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]