Support Good picture - interesting subject matter too as it is a very modern looking building for 50 years old.
gazhiley 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support --Just look at the reflection on the central building. But is it a stitch of 42 images? Unbelievable!!! --The Herald :
here I am 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Could we please have the appropriate FOP tag, or at least a textual indication of the FOP/copyright issues involved with the building itself? (Happy to support once this has been seen to, though!)
J Milburn (
talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And next time a nude woman in the window, please, there's a good zoom :)
Brandmeistertalk 11:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
<shock> Well, my mother made a similar comment about seeing into the offices (though with less nudity). An effective 160mm will do that, alright. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Voyeurism has been a hobby of Wikipedians for almost 9 years now. ;-) "I thought you were joking about the folders on the desk until I downloaded the whole image in all its glory". Actually, looking at that image with a fresh pair of eyes, I think the blue sky is a bit overdone. I might upload a new version of it with slightly desaturated sky.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Looks great, can't find a flaw.
Mattximus (
talk) 00:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - very nicely done!--
Godot13 (
talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment There is at least one small stiching error. I have added a note. --
DXR (
talk) 08:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Purely out of curiosity
DXR, where have you added the note? And where is the stiching error?
gazhiley 09:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Fix is uploading. @
gazhiley, Commons allows people to tag images to indicate certain points of interest, or to ease further discussion of the image. For instance, my
skyline of Detroit has the Renaissance Center, Detroit Princess, and
Joe Louis Arena all marked. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Crisco 1492, good to know. As this isn't Commons though, where would I find the note that
DXR has mentioned? I cannot see anything on either the image page, the thumbnail, the full size picture or the talk page for either the image or the nom. Just curious to see what I missed to help spot them in future.
gazhiley 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
On Commons. You'd have to click through (the Commons logo) to see it. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 16:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Tbh, I don't really see a change. But it surely isn't a big deal given the resolution. There also appears to be a frame about three window rows below the top of the reflections that looks quite affected by CA. But that's a bit of nitpicking and I just randomly saw it. Still very nice overall. --
DXR (
talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Might have to purge your cache while looking at it at full size. In any case, it was just a pixel's difference. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I still see the same stitching fault in both versions too... It's not a big problem though, but you said you fixed it. ;-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Blast, I must have uploaded an older version. Done again. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Very nice now. --
DXR (
talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Good picture - interesting subject matter too as it is a very modern looking building for 50 years old.
gazhiley 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support --Just look at the reflection on the central building. But is it a stitch of 42 images? Unbelievable!!! --The Herald :
here I am 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Could we please have the appropriate FOP tag, or at least a textual indication of the FOP/copyright issues involved with the building itself? (Happy to support once this has been seen to, though!)
J Milburn (
talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And next time a nude woman in the window, please, there's a good zoom :)
Brandmeistertalk 11:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
<shock> Well, my mother made a similar comment about seeing into the offices (though with less nudity). An effective 160mm will do that, alright. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Voyeurism has been a hobby of Wikipedians for almost 9 years now. ;-) "I thought you were joking about the folders on the desk until I downloaded the whole image in all its glory". Actually, looking at that image with a fresh pair of eyes, I think the blue sky is a bit overdone. I might upload a new version of it with slightly desaturated sky.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Looks great, can't find a flaw.
Mattximus (
talk) 00:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - very nicely done!--
Godot13 (
talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment There is at least one small stiching error. I have added a note. --
DXR (
talk) 08:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Purely out of curiosity
DXR, where have you added the note? And where is the stiching error?
gazhiley 09:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Fix is uploading. @
gazhiley, Commons allows people to tag images to indicate certain points of interest, or to ease further discussion of the image. For instance, my
skyline of Detroit has the Renaissance Center, Detroit Princess, and
Joe Louis Arena all marked. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Crisco 1492, good to know. As this isn't Commons though, where would I find the note that
DXR has mentioned? I cannot see anything on either the image page, the thumbnail, the full size picture or the talk page for either the image or the nom. Just curious to see what I missed to help spot them in future.
gazhiley 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
On Commons. You'd have to click through (the Commons logo) to see it. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 16:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Tbh, I don't really see a change. But it surely isn't a big deal given the resolution. There also appears to be a frame about three window rows below the top of the reflections that looks quite affected by CA. But that's a bit of nitpicking and I just randomly saw it. Still very nice overall. --
DXR (
talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Might have to purge your cache while looking at it at full size. In any case, it was just a pixel's difference. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I still see the same stitching fault in both versions too... It's not a big problem though, but you said you fixed it. ;-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Blast, I must have uploaded an older version. Done again. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Very nice now. --
DXR (
talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply