Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Posttower

Posttower edit

The Post Tower, corporate headquarters of the Deutsche Post AG.

New version with increased midtones and sharpness

Nominated because it shows - in an very well done photograph - a wonderful example of modern skyscraper architecture (designed by Helmut Jahn). The picture appears in the Deutsche Post article (not all that fascinating an article in itself). It was created by Thomas Robbin (German wikipedia user).

Nominate and support. - MadMaxDog 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me, but I'm no expert. Terri G 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a backlit subject kills the details on the subject. Way too much shadow for an enyclopedic photo (look at the trees in the bottom left, to bad you can't have fill flash on a structure so large, ha). The airplane trail, and the leaves at the top don't help either.--Andrew c 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the leaves HELP, because they add to the picture composition. MadMaxDog 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - while I feel that 1) the shadowing only affects the trees which are not the subject of the image, 2) the leaves contribute to the framing as MMDog indicated, I also feel that 3) the subject matter is of everyday experience, 4) it is by no means a stunning image of a building, and 5) I'm not sure it would generate all that much interest in an article. Leads me to weak support. Debivort 10:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For an image of a single building to be featured, it would usually be a pretty outstanding photo of a fairly unique building. I'm not sure that either of these apply. I don't mind the 'framing' leaves, but I don't like the placement of the tree on the left - a better angle could probably have been found if the photographer wasn't trying to hide the sun behind the building. --jjron 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - New version with increased midtones and sharpness. Trees frame the off-center image nicely. —dogears (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Comment - Actually this photo is not really bad, but as mentioned above, a picture of a single building should be really amazing to be FP. The leafs and the clouds are no problem, but the quality is not really good and the edit made it worst. By the way, this form of architecture is not MODERN anymore. Actually the modern architecture is really different now. --Arad 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Andrew c and jjron. Good picture and all, but, it lacks something. I don't like the tree on the left; the one on the upper right corner actually adds to the picture, though. Overall, just misses FP status. | AndonicO 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The edit is horrible, look at the grass and the quality of the leaves on the tree. The first picture isn't so bad, it just isn't awe-inspiring enough to be an FP. drumguy8800 C T 03:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. The original isn't very detailed, and the backlit lighting doesn't help. And the edit did strange things to the grass and other areas. --Tewy 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Vircabutar 04:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]