Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Library of Congress Interior

Library of Congress

Reason: A very crisp, clear and informative picture
Articles this image appears in: Library of Congress
Creator: User:Diliff
Nominator: Ahadland

Support — Ahadland 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of grain, but it is nonetheless a stunning image. Noclip 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support Please fix the stitching errors mentioned by TSP. Noclip 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great composition and stunning subject, but there's glare on the floor, purple fringing on the lamps on the far sides, and it's grainy --⁪froth^T 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to find that some of your comments are a bit silly and overly critical, froth. The 'glare' on the floor is reflections from ceiling lights, sheesh! I don't see how that is a significant concern. I'm going to have a go at re-processing this one as I'm not 100% happy with the white balance and I might see what I can do about the shadow noise. As far as I'm concerned the purple fringing is very minor and I might also be able to minimise that in post-production. Hold that vote. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diliff, is there anything you can do about that lamp on the left? Mak (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What were you thinking of exactly? I might be able to minimise the purple fringing but you haven't been very specific. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It just looks a bit "burnt out" is how I would put it. It's slightly distracting to me, but not enough to oppose. I just figured if you're going to be editing it anyway I might as well point it out. Mak (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There isn't really any detail on the bulb that is being blown and the light isn't washing out detail elsewhere. And I don't see how Diliff was supposed to cut the glare on the floor... I suppose he could have gone down to the floor with some sand paper and taken some of the shine out of it :( -Fcb981 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, it was actually a question from someone who didn't know, and so was asking a question. Mak (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All this nitpicking is starting to get very counterproductive. This image is highly encyclopedic, is one of Wikipedia's best images, and it is likely that is nearly impossible to do better. Noclip 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely has a lot of wow factor. H4cksaw (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong support have you ever taken a bad pic ;). Seriously though, nice and the little tech probs don't bother me at all. ~ Arjun 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Minor technical faults, but very nice overall. —Dgies^t c 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Fixes white balance and perspective issues. Slightly better detail in shadows too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most excellent pic. Here follows a rant: I am bored with nitpicking: yes, the lamp on the left is blown out but that's what lights do, they glow brightly!! Yes, there are some reflections in the floor but that's what shiny floors do, they reflect!! End of rant. - Adrian Pingstone 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd probably support this in any case, but it seems to me that there are considerable stitching errors in both versions. They're quite obvious in the beams on both sides of the top middle skylight of Edit 1; and a bit less obvious but still visible to the left of that skylight in the original. There are also visible errors on the balcony balustrade running across the middle of the picture - largish ones on the first version, more subtle ones on the second. Can anything be done about these? It's still a great image, but at least the second edit's roof errors all seem fairly obvious to me. TSP 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It's not perfect, but it is good enough to be featured. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Sure, small problems, but the image is overall wonderful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm glad Noclip pointed out the unfairness of all the nitpicking we're becoming famous for on FPC. This is a great image. --Iriseyes 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 - When I grow up I want to be able to do a pano like this - Alvesgaspar 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ack Arpingstone et al. What was Janke's comment? Rivetcounters! --Dschwen(A) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Weird projection, perhaps unavoidable due to very wide FOV, the room just does not look like this when you're standing there. Very noisy in the dark areas by the bibles. No geocoding, no exif, no accurate timestamp... from a metadata tracking perspective it's not the best we could offer. Finally the licensing data is contradictory: It claims that attribution to the copyright holder is required, yet the CC-by-sa-2.5 license that it's released under only provides attribution if the content hasn't been submitted by a downstream licensor to a site which takes attribution for itself via its terms of service (see cc-by-sa-2.5 4.c.ii). --Gmaxwell 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry Gmaxwell - but WHAT?!! Exif data in a stitched panorama? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the strong impression that nearly everything gets wiped when you stitch simply due to the impossibility of showing information of multiple images in a single image! Ditto with the timestamp - and who really cares about the exact minute it was taken at? Maybe if it was some kind of famous event like the signing of the declaration of nuclear war perhaps time would bear some kind of enc relevance but for general use this is not the case. Geocoding? Like as in GPS? Yes I'd like to be rich enough to afford a GPS too... This kind of nitpicking is going too far! --Fir0002 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, the metadata issue has a grain of truth. But it can easily be fixed. For geocoding you just need google-map. Although EXIF data could be implanted back into the pano, a propperly filled out commons {{information}}-template would do the job too. --Dschwen(A) 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, as far as meta data goes, that is still in the original pictures, as far as geo-locating goes, I don't think that room moves around much. A timestamp I could take or leave. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per Dschwen. Stiching doesn't preclude exif, nor is exif required: Information template is good enough (plus it is trivial to add exif data with exiftool, .. we really should be putting our copyright data inside the images). GPS isn't required for geocoding, and it is something we should be looking for in our features pictures, especially with cool location aware tools like Dschwen's WMA showing up. We're going for the best we have to offer, So fix it. :) --Gmaxwell 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think the exact timestamp is that relevent, date is specific enough. My preferred edit does include all relevent info in the info template (which didn't exist - at least on the upload page - at the time of upload of the original). Geocoding COULD be added but lets be fair. I think the article is a better location for that sort of info but if the image info template is missing something that you feel should be included, it is a relatively trivial job to add it. That sort of thing shouldn't preclude your support. As for the licencing, you've obviously spent more time studying it, but I was under the impression that attribution to the author/copyright holder is always required? I have always stated the same attribution requirement and nobody has ever commented on this previously. In fact, if what you say is true, then I suspect a lot of contributors will be as troubled by this as I am. The licencing requirements on commons are quite strange... I am yet to have explained to me the reasoning behind losing attribution or the requirement of allowing commercial use of media contributions. As I see it, we are donating images to Wiki for educational purposes, not giving them away as stock to any commercial entity to profit from and provide nothing - not even attribution - to the copyright holder. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. Evidently my understanding, and the understanding a number of our contributors, is lacking on this subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, preferably original. Original looks more natural. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:25, Monday, January 29 2007}
Oppose edit 1 the color correction seems overdone, like now there is a blue tint to everything. I prefer the warmer colors, especially for an interior shot where the light typically used is on the warmer side of things. Weak support original.-Andrew c 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow that building's big. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 - Another good image from Diliff. This is the resolution we want. And I don't see a reason to oppose. --Arad 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. I can't make up my mind. howcheng {chat} 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. Looks great to me! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]