Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trellick Tower

Trellick Tower

Reason: Both subjects (the tower and the canal) are in focus and the image meets (AFAIK) all the technical and composition requirements. It adds to both articles in which it's currently used; Trellick Tower in illustrating both the design of the tower, and its extreme height in comparison to surrounding buildings, and Grand Union Canal by showing the width and tight curvature of the canal
Articles this image appears in: Trellick Tower, Grand Union Canal
Creator: Iridescent

Support as nominator -- – iride scent 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image had some obvious technical problems which I addressed with Edit1 - the image has presumable been rotated and had a white border as a result. Also, image was noisy and had some CA. Lifted shadows, sharpened and + a little saturation. Photographically I think the image is well composed with the canal leading the eye. Not sure about enc for the tower as we can't see it all. Mfield (Oi!) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that – yes, I forgot that I'd rotated it a couple of degrees (this was uploaded a couple of years ago now). I semi-agree about not showing the complete tower in that it only shows it from the side – but in defense, because of the way the tower is positioned there's no camera angle that would show the whole building face-on (see the images on the Trellick Tower article in which the building is partly obscured in every shot, to see what I mean). In any event, the primary purpose of this was to illustrate the canal, hence the "GU Canal Westbourne Park" filename (I haven't actually yet written the Water transport in London article it was meant to illustrate, although some of its sub-articles such as Hammerton's Ferry and Serpentine are finished) and I do think it serves the purpose in illustrating the canal. (The pedestrians on the canal's edge are intrusive but deliberately left in to give a better sense of scale.) – iride scent 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ (moved to oppose) looks very, very grainy. Could use another edit. GARDEN 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saved it as a progressive jpeg by mistake, did you wait for it to fully load? Mfield (Oi!) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, still looks like a watercolour or something... GARDEN 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As does the original, so I'm going to have to oppose based on that. (If you could upload as a normal jpg I'll relook if you ping me.) Sorry. GARDEN 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see yes the original that I edit here already had a that artifacting, but as the uploader mentions he had rotated the image before uploading so there may have been more loss than necessary in that edit and resave. Maybe Iridescent could replace the original with the actual out of camera original and I could redo the edit from that to see if it improves. I haven't actually supported either version myself at this point partly because of the quality, I added the edit to improve the original as best as possible. Mfield (Oi!) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No progressive JPEGs please, they don't thumbnail reliably. MER-C 09:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A pretty drab uninteresting photograph, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Edit 1 is much better and should be used in the articles, but doesn't really redeem the dull composition and lack of strong enc. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]