Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago from Adler Planetarium

Chicago from Adler Planetarium edit

Chicago Skyline stretching from Shedd Aquarium to Navy Pier taken from Adler Planetarium

This image was taken October 1st from Adler Planetarium. This image is a composite of 8 high resolution images. The current image of the Chicago skyline is fuzzy and a little out of date. Chicago is a gorgeous city and has so much to offer.

I spent a lot of time working on alignment and stitching with hopes that it would be more to every one's liking. I also reduced the amount of air and water that occupy the image.

There are 3 new versions available including the one above. The one which I like best has much more air and water. Also I put up a version which eliminates Shedd and Navy Pier.

Old Version edit

Nominate and support. - Buphoff 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it needs to be in an article. Until then, it's ineligible. howch e ng {chat} 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to curved horizon and stitching errors. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stitching discoloration and misallignment very noticeable. The horizon curvature might be less noticeable if the area of the photo taken up by lake Michican was reduced. However, Image:Chicago_Skyline_at_Sunset.png is already a featured picture and, while a bit blurry, is still better. --S0uj1r0 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very poor stitching. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50% of photo taken up by water. If you had the same series with sharper focus on the buildings and perhaps only 20% water, it might change my vote. See this skyline. --Bridgecross 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too similar to the better-quality Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png (already Featured), so it got dumped from the Chicago article (not by me, I should point out). howch e ng {chat} 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Version edit

Comment New Versions Available with better stitching, no curvature, and less water/sky. Buphoff 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. This is much better, but you might want to cut off a bit from the right hand side. NauticaShades^(talk) 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality, though the right hand side could be cut. Glaurung 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should I cut off Navy Pier (last 1/4 of the image) or just the sail boat and empty water? Note: Navy Pier is an important historical landmark and tourist attraction of Chicago.
Support. I like it, this picture fits perfectly in the Chicago article and it shows how beautiful the Chicago skyline is. Also it needs the right part because Navy Pier is a very important part of Chicago and the lake is beautiful.Dbhatt4 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut the sailboât at the very least. I realized that the navy pier is worth keeping. NauticaShades^(talk) 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Stitching errors (for instance the sky isn't a smooth gradient), blown highlights, and it could be sharper. Good picture, but not FP in my opinion. --Tewy 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still. The stitching is too obvious in the sky. howch e ng {chat} 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The new crop is much better, and it's a good photo, but I would like the detail in the buildings to be a little more crisp. Can't do that without re-taking the whole sequence again of course. If the sequence were taken without the water in the first place, zoomed in closer to the skyline, you could pull it off. --Bridgecross 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per stitching. HighInBC 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I took it:) I'll have a better version sometime soon.Buphoff 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShad e s 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]