Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2023 at 20:51:39 (UTC)
Reason
The angle is slightly off but the image adequately demonstrates the subject. There is very slight grain but virtually unnoticeable. Lighting has not been altered. Resolution and composition are fair. I can retake the picture from a different angle if necessary.
Oppose – Building image lacks visual interest, vertical perspective looks faulty, and target article
seems to have been written primarily by nominator. –
Sca (
talk) 13:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article being written by nominator is a problem, but the image is cut off on the right and has too much foreground. Perspective is fairly fixable, so I'd say it's about 80% of the way to what may be our first high school FP: There's a lot of good in the image. I'd suggest playing with angle to get the full building in, and then you may need to collaborate on a perspective adjustment and crop. It's a great image, just not quite at the top level, but I think you can do it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.3% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as such. Agree with Adam above. Architectural photography has many pitfalls - this illustrates a few of them, among others a too low camera position which causes much of the perspective distortion. This could be done a lot better, so why don't give it another try... --
Janke |
Talk 15:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
IMO, much blah foreground, too. --
Sca (
talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I did mention that. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.3% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 10:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2023 at 20:51:39 (UTC)
Reason
The angle is slightly off but the image adequately demonstrates the subject. There is very slight grain but virtually unnoticeable. Lighting has not been altered. Resolution and composition are fair. I can retake the picture from a different angle if necessary.
Oppose – Building image lacks visual interest, vertical perspective looks faulty, and target article
seems to have been written primarily by nominator. –
Sca (
talk) 13:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article being written by nominator is a problem, but the image is cut off on the right and has too much foreground. Perspective is fairly fixable, so I'd say it's about 80% of the way to what may be our first high school FP: There's a lot of good in the image. I'd suggest playing with angle to get the full building in, and then you may need to collaborate on a perspective adjustment and crop. It's a great image, just not quite at the top level, but I think you can do it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.3% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as such. Agree with Adam above. Architectural photography has many pitfalls - this illustrates a few of them, among others a too low camera position which causes much of the perspective distortion. This could be done a lot better, so why don't give it another try... --
Janke |
Talk 15:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
IMO, much blah foreground, too. --
Sca (
talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I did mention that. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.3% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 10:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply