Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SpaceNeedleTopClose.jpg

Top of the Space Needle edit

The top of the Space Needle in Seattle, Washington exelempfies Googie architecture.

Alternate

Reason: I really like the angle of the image and how it illustrates the observation deck (with people visible) and revolving restaurant, but because it was taken from very far away at ground level the underside is still visible. I've been waiting for a long time to self-nominate one of the many photographs I have contributed and I think this one is high enough quality. I still have the 4372 x 2906 original RAW file (though it required some straightening) if anyone would like to suggest improvements.
Articles this image appears in: Space Needle, Googie architecture
Creator: Cacophony

Support as nominator — Cacophony 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible that you do a vertical panorama and have the whole structure in it? Also did you resample the image? There are some moiré pattern near the top which would be correctable if it's caused by improper resampling. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From this angle (3000 ft. away at ground level zoomed to 400mm) a panorama wouldn't contain much the structure due to obstructions. To get much more than half of the tower you pretty much need to be elevated. I took another photo from a different location that turned out pretty good, but I'm not nearly as fond of that one and the prespective from the north makes the tower appear much larger (in relation to other buildings) than it is. As for the moiré on the solar panels, it seems to be like that on the RAW file and I'm not very skilled at post processing. Thanks for the comment. Cacophony 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What lens/camera did you use? --Dschwen 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used a Canon 5D with a 100-400mm, f5.7, 1/800. I will add that to the image discription page. Cacophony 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support What's that's grayish stuff on one of the center windows? Was that part of the subject?--Here T oHelp 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats the reflection of something... ^8thstar 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose a (diliff style) shot of the entire tower would be more apropriate for FP. also I would prefer the picture taken against blue sky instead of a white cloud that hides the subject. otherwise fine but building shots are quite reproduceable and should have little in the way of flaws. and I personaly like your other full tower picture better -Fcb981 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Would be much more encyclopedic and visually appealing if the entire building was in the photograph. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ten days and three votes. 2-2 tie and it gets rejected? What a crock of shit. Cacophony 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, but I do agree that FPC is becoming ever more picky on the non-issues lately. Now the pass rate is like what, less than 1 in 5? But you have to consider that we don't have an article of the top of the Space Needle, and if it became a FP it would be a lot more appropriate for the whole structure to be shown if it's linked to Space Needle --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reasons for opposition are the exact same reasons that I nominated it. Just because it dosen't contain the entire structure (90% of which is not interesting) is a piss poor reason to oppose it. This, this, this, and this, don't contain the entire animal, this, this, and this picture dosen't contain more than half the body, and this picture doesn't contain the entire atmosphere. The examples are endless. Saying that a Dliff image is just about as useless, we might as well close nominations to everyone that isn't a professional photographer. Cacophony 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think other parts of the structure is also quite interesting, and I would have full supported the alternative version if the photographer opened up the aperture a bit and used a lower ISO (quite a bit of noise and seems diffraction-limited), or even did a vertical panorama if he could; I would have weak supported this nomination if I remembered to vote, but my half vote still wouldn't make too much of a difference. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]