Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber

Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber

From the [[Scottish Parliament Building] Taken by User:Klauses with Kig. An excellent photo, nice contrast and colours. A high resolution (9098x1858, 3566kB).

Nominate and support. - Globaltraveller 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is shot at an awkward angle and cuts off the subject, lack of vertical view angle and quite severe blown highlights (although I know you can't do much about it other than HDR) --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Solid quality pano. I don't see any stitching faults, it's sharp, and captures the subject nicely. Screw the blown out highlights. I ask myself, am I missing info or detail because of the BOH? No, I don't. Detail in the windows would distract rather than add. And HDR is not the solution to all problems. Face it, the dynamic range of a cam and a monitor is very limited, use it for the interesting parts of ypur picture. --Dschwen 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the windows at least be taken back a notch so they aren't so bright? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Dschwen - I'd have liked half a stop less exposure, though. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic! - Adrian Pingstone 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus issues throughout picture. --Bridgecross 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. There are indeed vertical bands of slight unsharpness. I wonder if that comes from the stitching process (in that case a restitch would help), or from real focus issues on the edge of th econstituent pictures (bad lens). --Dschwen 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be; when you look at the 3rd security camera from the left, and the velvet rope below that, there is a severe blur. --Bridgecross 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think we need a shot with no people and a better camera to make it sharper, less blowout. I think it's a reasonable request since it's not too difficult to get into that room without many people (I was in there with just my class) and they run tours through it. Good idea, jut needs slightly better execution. gren グレン 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not worried about the people - architecture isn't a sterile art - it's supposed to be occupied. My concern is the element that impresses in this space is the roof which is cropped off and plays little part of the image. Encyclopaedicly the roof element need to be included, not least because they had to evacuate the chamber this year because a beam became detached.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 December 2006
Oppose - I half-agree with Dschwen about the highlights, but these are a bit too blown - I think the whole image is half a stop or so over-exposed. There are also some annoying stitching/focus issues, which a restitch might or might not fix. I'd probably weak oppose even a fixed version because of the glare. I'd also like to see more roof, as that is one of the iconic features of the building. --YFB ¿ 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture! Sharkface217 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems cluttered and messy (could be exactly what it's like in real life, but I don't think it's a clear depiction of the subject), probably a view from a heigh would be more helpful. Terri G 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Janke. --Iriseyes 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --YFB ¿ 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]