Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Domtoren, Utrecht

Domtoren, Utrecht, Netherlands

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Domtoren, Utrecht and the Netherlands

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice image, however Oppose due to distracting deep shadow on the roof. SilkTork *^YES! 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded an alternative --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that; however, what you gain in one area you lose in another - the tower is now slightly bleached in the Sun, and there are some distracting shadows in the lantern. Also, looking at both, it appears that the tower is leaning to the left. SilkTork *^YES! 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help the fact. that a 700-year-old structure is tilted somewhat. As for the image itself, there is no overexposure. Shadows will always be there. This building is very large and has a lot of nooks and crannies, which can't be evenly lit at the same time. It's either this or that. I've now offered you an image in the early and late afternoon. If I would have taken this in the morning, the sun would be in my face. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the tower leans slightly more in the first image, I think it's the camera angle rather than the age of the tower that is at fault. This is bourne out by looking at the modern white building in background (the one in front of the ASR building) as that also leans in both, and leans more in the first than the second. As for solving the shadow/bleaching problem, try shooting it on a day with good light, but no direct sunshine. SilkTork *^YES! 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one File:Domtoren vanaf de Stadhuisbrug.JPG has a more interesting angle that gives more detail and overcomes some of the shadow problems. Also it doesn't lean! I'm not offering it as a substitute, but a suggestion of a better angle to take the tower. SilkTork *^YES! 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I haven't convinced you, but you have to believe me when I say this tower is tilted. First of all, I've seen the tilt with my own eyes. I also took different pictures that day from different viewing points, which also show the same tilt. I use a Manfrotto tripod with a built in measuring system, which uses a water bubble (don't know the English noun for it). Since this panorama was taken from a modern building, this simply eliminates every major tilt. Afterwards, I've corrected a small tilt of 0,2 degrees in Photoshop by drawing vertical lines using the modern office building in the background, which you mention, as a reference point (draw a vertical line over it and you will see there is no tilt). Another way to notice there is no tilt, is by looking at the chimneys and the small tower in the foreground. The alternative could contain a minor tilt, since I've that one quickly by hand. If it were to become a FP, I could always correct this afterwards. Oh, one more thing about the tilt-issue... every part of the tower is tilted in a different direction (the lantern for instance is less tilted than the part directly below it). As for the other image you showed, yes, that one was taken from the square in front of the city hall. That square is a very crowded place, so a panorama shot there wouldn't become a very nice one imo. I've uploaded the current panorama to Wikipedia, because it also includes the cathedral and not simply the tower. Therefore it can also be used in different articles. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with slight preference to the alternative. EV is high enough to offset minor lighting problems. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't consider the lighting an issue (and laughed out loud at the fact that "I can't help the fact that a 700-year-old structure is tilted somewhat") but I don't like the distracting building at the bottom, cutting off the bottom of the subject. Compare with our other architectural FPs- a full shot of the whole building would be best. I appreciate how difficult that is, but right now this is slightly lacking. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but would like to point out that the FP's of the Big Ben and Torre Agbar are also cut of at the bottom. I noticed that Wikipedia didn't had a decent picture of this structure, so decided to take on while being in Utrecht yesterday. At least now Wikipedia has one. Whether it becomes a FP is up to you guys (obviously). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the Big Ben image when I made the comment- that is of the tower, rather than the building as a whole, and so serves its purpose well. The other one is a little cut off, but not nearly as much as this one. Please don't take this negatively; it's a great picture and a great addition to the encyclopedia, I just don't think it's FP material. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't take things said here (well, most of them ;) ) negatively including your comment. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Alternate; Neutral on Original What was done to the shadows on the alt is clearly unnatural, especially the small roof in the bottom right corner. As for the other, I have yet to decide if it is worthy. Nezzadar (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I've done nothing to the shadows. The picture was just taken earlier on in the day (see the clock on the tower). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]