A panoramic view of
Melbourne Docklands and city skyline from
Waterfront City looking across
Victoria Harbour,
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia. Features include (from left), some residential and commercial buildings along the harbour at
New Quay, the
Seven Network digital broadcast centre, some of the original (now renovated) Melbourne docks sheds on Central Pier, the
Telstra Dome (Docklands Stadium), and commercial buildings, including the colourful lowrise
National Australia Bank headquarters. In the background is the Melbourne CBD skyline, including the
Rialto Towers (the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere) and the
Eureka Tower (the tallest residential building in the world). The construction in progress of some buildings in Docklands shows the still evolving nature of this part of the city.
Reason
I uploaded this image late last year and intended to nominate it then as I believe it meets all the FPC requirements, but just never got around to it. I was reminded of it when
Subaru Australia contacted me to tell me they had used it as the backdrop for their advertising for the
Melbourne International Motor Show a few months ago, so thought if it's good enough for them I may as well give it a try here.
Support as nominator —
jjron 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose On balance, the good lighting and careful composition aren't enough to excuse lack of detail, slight fringing and rather over-exposed highlights. I like it & I can see why Subaru liked it, but the one thing which might have swayed me to support – enc value – seems to be its weakest virtue.
mikaultalk 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I would like to see more detail in the summary statement. What exactly are we looking at? I can see at least five cranes - what are they building? If the same shot was taken today, would it look substantially different? I'm leaning towards support, but I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of a picture that's now out of date (and with no particular historic value).
Matt Deres 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If this shot has low encyclopedic value, surely the same would apply to
this,
this,
this and most of the other featured panoramas we have? I really don't see the problem with the encyclopedic value in this picture.
Raven4x4x 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If the views of those photos are now out of date, then I'd be concerned about the encyclopedic qualities of them as well - for example, a shot of the NYC skyline in 1999 is an historic image, but no longer of much encyclopedic value compared to the way the city currently looks. There seems to be a great deal of construction going on in the FPC image, which means that it may now be out of date. It might have encyclopedic value as an historic image, but those are judged by slightly different criteria, which is why I've asked for more info. If the construction was actually pretty minor, then I'd be happy to support as I genuinely like this picture.
IMO, historic pics get some passes as regards film quality, composition, etc, but they need to have some real historic value to be considered FP - this shot has the quality and composition to make it as a 'current' image, but may not be historically important enough to warrant getting in as an historic photo. Yeah, I know I'm rambling; hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm talking about. In either case, the caption needs some mroe detail.
Matt Deres 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Beautiful image. Cities don't change that much in a year.
Adam Cuerdentalk 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Interesting comment to make for this image - this is the one area of Melbourne which really *is* changing. The stadium in the centre was built less than 10 years ago. The tower to the right of the word 'dome' was completed in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, the central area on stilts is about to be redeveloped into some crappy restaurant or hotel. I suspect most of the apartment buildings in the area are less than 10 years old as well. I'm neutral on the FP-ness of it - the rightmost third of it is a bit vacuous, and I don't like seeing the boardwalk at the left.
Stevage 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Not quite FP material. The lighting is simply wrong, and the composition is a little off. --
Hetar 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support not as big as I would like in a pano, but illustrates its topic very well. I don't understand why people are saying it is low enc.
Debivort 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Agree with Debivort - seems to have good enc value. Also good to see is a lack of the
distortion you usually get with such wide angle panos involving straight lines --
Fir0002 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply. Sorry, have been away and have only just got back and had a look at this. I have updated the caption and picture summary to try to address some of the concerns raised by some voters about lack of encyclopaedic value, as this seemed to be the main cause for opposing or being unsure. The concern about it being almost a year old I can't do much about now, except to say that last time I was down that way, about 3mths ago, the area shown in the pano hadn't changed all that much (yes, Stevage is right, this area of Melbourne in general is undergoing lots of development, but the main stuff you see here hasn't changed much). I'm not sure what can be done about the lighting for Hetar as everyone else seems to think it's good, as did I. Re the composition, I accept that some may prefer the buildings at the right to be cut from perhaps where the NAB buildings end (Subaru did cut them out in the ad I mentioned), but I left them in as I thought it added to the encyclopaedic value; I disagree with Stevage about the walkway at the left, as it does add considerable value by showing how Waterfront City is connected to the rest of Docklands via New Quay, and that this photo wasn't taken, say, from a boat out on Victoria Harbour. --
jjron 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support My concerns have been met by the expanded caption and I think the shot itself is both eye-catching and encyclopedic.
Matt Deres 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Melbourne from Waterfront City, Docklands Pano, 20.07.06.jpgMER-C 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply
A panoramic view of
Melbourne Docklands and city skyline from
Waterfront City looking across
Victoria Harbour,
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia. Features include (from left), some residential and commercial buildings along the harbour at
New Quay, the
Seven Network digital broadcast centre, some of the original (now renovated) Melbourne docks sheds on Central Pier, the
Telstra Dome (Docklands Stadium), and commercial buildings, including the colourful lowrise
National Australia Bank headquarters. In the background is the Melbourne CBD skyline, including the
Rialto Towers (the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere) and the
Eureka Tower (the tallest residential building in the world). The construction in progress of some buildings in Docklands shows the still evolving nature of this part of the city.
Reason
I uploaded this image late last year and intended to nominate it then as I believe it meets all the FPC requirements, but just never got around to it. I was reminded of it when
Subaru Australia contacted me to tell me they had used it as the backdrop for their advertising for the
Melbourne International Motor Show a few months ago, so thought if it's good enough for them I may as well give it a try here.
Support as nominator —
jjron 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose On balance, the good lighting and careful composition aren't enough to excuse lack of detail, slight fringing and rather over-exposed highlights. I like it & I can see why Subaru liked it, but the one thing which might have swayed me to support – enc value – seems to be its weakest virtue.
mikaultalk 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I would like to see more detail in the summary statement. What exactly are we looking at? I can see at least five cranes - what are they building? If the same shot was taken today, would it look substantially different? I'm leaning towards support, but I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of a picture that's now out of date (and with no particular historic value).
Matt Deres 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If this shot has low encyclopedic value, surely the same would apply to
this,
this,
this and most of the other featured panoramas we have? I really don't see the problem with the encyclopedic value in this picture.
Raven4x4x 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If the views of those photos are now out of date, then I'd be concerned about the encyclopedic qualities of them as well - for example, a shot of the NYC skyline in 1999 is an historic image, but no longer of much encyclopedic value compared to the way the city currently looks. There seems to be a great deal of construction going on in the FPC image, which means that it may now be out of date. It might have encyclopedic value as an historic image, but those are judged by slightly different criteria, which is why I've asked for more info. If the construction was actually pretty minor, then I'd be happy to support as I genuinely like this picture.
IMO, historic pics get some passes as regards film quality, composition, etc, but they need to have some real historic value to be considered FP - this shot has the quality and composition to make it as a 'current' image, but may not be historically important enough to warrant getting in as an historic photo. Yeah, I know I'm rambling; hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm talking about. In either case, the caption needs some mroe detail.
Matt Deres 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Beautiful image. Cities don't change that much in a year.
Adam Cuerdentalk 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Interesting comment to make for this image - this is the one area of Melbourne which really *is* changing. The stadium in the centre was built less than 10 years ago. The tower to the right of the word 'dome' was completed in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, the central area on stilts is about to be redeveloped into some crappy restaurant or hotel. I suspect most of the apartment buildings in the area are less than 10 years old as well. I'm neutral on the FP-ness of it - the rightmost third of it is a bit vacuous, and I don't like seeing the boardwalk at the left.
Stevage 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Not quite FP material. The lighting is simply wrong, and the composition is a little off. --
Hetar 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support not as big as I would like in a pano, but illustrates its topic very well. I don't understand why people are saying it is low enc.
Debivort 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Agree with Debivort - seems to have good enc value. Also good to see is a lack of the
distortion you usually get with such wide angle panos involving straight lines --
Fir0002 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply. Sorry, have been away and have only just got back and had a look at this. I have updated the caption and picture summary to try to address some of the concerns raised by some voters about lack of encyclopaedic value, as this seemed to be the main cause for opposing or being unsure. The concern about it being almost a year old I can't do much about now, except to say that last time I was down that way, about 3mths ago, the area shown in the pano hadn't changed all that much (yes, Stevage is right, this area of Melbourne in general is undergoing lots of development, but the main stuff you see here hasn't changed much). I'm not sure what can be done about the lighting for Hetar as everyone else seems to think it's good, as did I. Re the composition, I accept that some may prefer the buildings at the right to be cut from perhaps where the NAB buildings end (Subaru did cut them out in the ad I mentioned), but I left them in as I thought it added to the encyclopaedic value; I disagree with Stevage about the walkway at the left, as it does add considerable value by showing how Waterfront City is connected to the rest of Docklands via New Quay, and that this photo wasn't taken, say, from a boat out on Victoria Harbour. --
jjron 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support My concerns have been met by the expanded caption and I think the shot itself is both eye-catching and encyclopedic.
Matt Deres 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Melbourne from Waterfront City, Docklands Pano, 20.07.06.jpgMER-C 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply