Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Central Station outside

Grand Central Station outside.

Reason: You know, I wonder how Diliff managed to take his picture of GCT here I set up to take a panorama in the inside and some US military officer comes over and nearly confiscates my tripod. Maybe Diliff shot hand-held but it was pretty dark in there. Diliff, (if you see this) how did you manage it. Anyway, outside, I avoided a tussle with a drunk middle-aged woman and took this. The perspective was difficult but let me say that I got it almost as well corrected as I think possible.
Articles this image appears in: Grand Central Terminal, Rail transport in the United States
Creator: User:Fcb981

Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question this a squared off building right? It looks really curvy and would benefit from perspective correction I think. de Bivort
Comment Could some of the distortion be an optical illusion, because there's a round building behind it goofing up the perspective? Clegs (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's some residual distortion left over. What I see is the angle between the left wall and the subject wall. That will be nearly impossible to correct fully. This is the third stitch I've done to try to correct all of the distortion that I could see. If you could point out specific places where it is worst, I could do another stitch. Keep in mind that in NYC there isn't really wide open space to get nice perspective on the building. I think the horizontal angle of view was close to that of a 10mm lens on a full frame, something you can only get with a fish-eye and leaving worse distortion. So I could potentially try again if you mean someplace specific but I was very pleased to get it this corrected. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Oppose Current ~~There's three smudges right in the middle of the picture. Looks like a smear on the lense?~~ per the distortion issues raised by debivort. I do realize they are difficult to fix, but the picture just looks funny. Clegs (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, uh, with all due respect those "smudges" are steam or smoke emanating from the station due to heating or train activity. I actually found them quite aesthetic. I'm slightly interested by the strong oppose, assuming that they were actually smudges, they would have been very easy to remove. In any case, I hope that clears things up for you. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see if I can correct it a bit better. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. Clegs could have added that the flag is blurry as well, but these "flaws" are just a part of taking low light photos. Cacophony (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Verticals aren't straight, for one thing. I'm not sure if I prefer a straight-on shot or not, but this one looks…odd. Kinda. Meh.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very odd distortion. The whole picture is bowed and warped - even the proportions of the taxis change over the span of the image - Peripitus (Talk) 08:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HereToHelp and Peripitus. Matt Deres (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a former New Yorker I confess bias toward images of that grimy yet gorgeous city, yet it's hard to see the particular encyclopedic value here. This is one of the better known landmarks. I can't endorse the shot as architectural photography or as a candid scene of city life. If post-9/11 security makes photography cumbersome then shoot across the street (not the Chrysler Building, the Chanin Building - or take the crosstown shuttle, ride up the 2 or the 3 to 96th street, stroll down to Riverside Drive, and shoot the Cliff Dwelling...I'd really love a photo of that art deco forerunner...but I digress). Durova^Charge! 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did shoot that interior shot hand-held. It was dark, but I used a high ISO and image stabilisation. Even so, I was pretty limited at f/4 but managed to pull it off, I suppose. :-) It is pretty common inside buildings to be prohibited from taking photos with a tripod. They usually use the excuse that it may cause a safety hazard (people tripping over the legs etc), but occasionally when they want to restrict you from taking commercial quality photos. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stealth monopod? ;) Durova^Charge! 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unencylopaedic distortion. I will certainly support it on Commons, though. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per peripitus. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]