Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Los Angeles Pollution.jpg

Air Pollution over LA

This image is another panorama - a 2 x 10 segment panorama that originally extended far further to the right, showing much more of the urban sprawl all the way to Hollywood. However, I've cropped this one to include just the Los Angeles downtown area and Griffith Observatory on the top of the hill for contrast. This image demonstrates the effect of air pollution as you can clearly see the thicker smog blanket that extends horizontally across the city at approximately the height of the skyscrapers. This is contrasted by the Hollywood Hills in the foreground which are relatively untained by pollution compared to the background, showing the cumulative effect that air pollution has on visibility.

Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know, I would love to see the full version. It's very crisp at all depths, and what better than Los Angeles for an air pollution article? Nice stuff. Drumguy8800 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer, actually Houston would be better, since it surpassed LA in air pollution a few years ago. But maybe I'm just saying that because I used to live in LA... ;-). But some insane datail in this image, just like the three sisters. While the crops make sense for the FPCs, can you make the full versions available too? --Dschwen 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By request, here is the original[1]. It is quite a bit longer and a little taller. While it does extend far further to the right, the visibility gets much worse too. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I edited the caption of the fullsize pic and here on this page. The image extends only to Hollywood. Santa Monica is much further to the right. That is not even West Hollywood at the right of the frame. --Dschwen 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected then. :) Sorry for the confusion. Hard for me to tell given the visibility. I was merely a tourist! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. See above. --Dschwen 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now - the hill takes up a majority of the picture, and IMO, distracts from the point of the picture. I need to come back to this one. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a version that cut off the observatory and part of the hill (starting the photo right where the hill starts to go up again, say), so the hill doesn't overbalance the picture. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I did think about cropping to show just the LA skyline and a little of the hill, but it loses a lot of context when you do that. I know that the image appears a little off balance with so much of the hills in the foreground and on the left, but I like to think that it shows the observatory looking down on the valley. What could possibly be done is to crop it more horizontally but that would increase the aspect ratio, and really thin panoramas are usually not as effective. I'll submit an edit soon, perhaps, but I suspect it won't have the same support. I could be wrong though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Striking and well-executed, great illustration of air pollution. Camerafiend 02:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suspect this photographer, (and/or other photos) can show the layers more distinctly and I agree that the hillside takes up too much of the photo. The detail of the Coastal sage scrub is super high, however this nomination is based on polution, not shrubs. Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The detail is reasonably high across the entire photo, not just the scrub. I challenge you to find a photo that does show the detail of pollution. Air pollution by nature is diffusive to light. ;) I completely accept your reasoning, though, that there is too much hillside, but I think compositionally it looks awkward if you crop most of it out.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite the hill, I think it conveys its message well. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugh! I can almost taste it! I'm not fussed about the hill. It's essential for contrast and context and if it is a little big, so be it. This photo is a great illustration of its theme. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. What he said. --Kizor 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great resolution, practically perfect stitching. --Janke | Talk 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't really care about the hill, I think it gives it a sense of perspective. It's good resolution, and the pollution... see Veledan's post. -- Charm Quark^?? 17:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It has good resolution and is quite representative of the LA smog (spent part of my childhood there) and the hill is no impediment.--Dakota ~ ε 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg. I hope my home city of Perth never gets like this... Raven4x4x 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]