Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ciudad de las ciencias noche

Ciudad de las ciencias noche

Edit 1 - Fixed the grain and blur and keeping the high res. by Arad

Edit 2 by Fir0002, sharpening/noise reduction

This is a renomination of an image which failed to become FP because it needed a half-support. A high quality photo which also represents the modern architecture (and it was a nominee for architecture portal photo). A good choice for FP and Pic of the day. Author: Chosovi. It appears in Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències article.

Nominate and support. -Arad 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as before - it's still poorly focussed, motion-blurry and grainy. There should be nothing to prevent someone from taking a better-quality shot than this; all they'd need is a tripod and some patience. What justifies renomination, apart from the fact that you didn't like the votes you got last time? --YFB ¿ 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the image not me, or why I renominated this. There's no rule stating renomination must have a very good reason. If you want my reason, the reason is within months no one got a better shot, which means, this is probably the best shot we can get. And I think it's good. If you don't like it, that's fine, just oppose it. Plus I'm not the author of this image and i get nothing from the FP statue of this photo. This is wikipedia and I do what I want within the laws of it, YummyFriutBat. So please, just state your opinion. Thank you very much. --Arad 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've been to Spain. So if you ever go there again (you're much closer to Spain than I am) please take the time and take a better shot. --Arad 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been to mainland Spain, but it's quite a big place and I was only there for a week. If I should happen to be in Valencia then yes, I would try to take a better shot than this and in all honesty I don't think it would be that difficult, as the centre has clearly been designed (and lit) to be extremely photogenic. I don't think this photo does it justice and, as has been said many times before, we don't need to have a FP of everything. I meant no offence when I asked why you'd renominated it, I was just trying to understand your reasoning as the image hasn't changed and neither has the building, as far as I know (i.e. it's just as replaceable as it was before). --YFB ¿ 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm going to be in Valencia in about four weeks time, but no guarantees I'll be able to replicate this shot. If I do find the time to be there at dusk, I'm confident I'll be able to take a comparable/better shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YESS! Diliff's going to take a shot. That's going to be interesting 15MB image. So even if this one gets FP, Diliff is going to supersede it :-D. --Arad 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from the last nomination Pstuart84 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose either edit, oppose original. I think the technical problems are minor, but things like the blur simply aren't excusable for featured pictures, and can't be completely removed in any edit. --Tewy 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all three because the lack of sharpness and despite the beatiful composition and colours. Alvesgaspar 21:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - I don't think I voted on this one last time, but it also seems to have compression artifacts near the high contrast borders. Debivort 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again. Same reason - the building is blurred on on the far left side. Witt y lama 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Renomination is too early, and the pic is substandard, especially for a reproducible shot. --Dschwen 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Any credit goes to the architects of the building. I'd like to see a better picture, anyone want to venture into the spanish WP and see if anyone lives there? :) --⁪froth^{T C} 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 per all the work done to clean it up. I would oppose the first version and Edit 1, but Edit 2 really shines. Sharkface217 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per Alvesgaspar. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]