Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Qwestfield

Qwest Field edit

July 2002 photo of Qwest Field a few days after its official opening taken from the 75th floor of the Bank of America Tower in Seattle Washington

File:Seahawks2002 part 2.jpg

Trying this again, to meet some concerns as best I can

I think this is one cool image, I like how low the cloud deck is, and the remarkable detail of the bustle of the city 75 floors below.; I photographed this image .

Nominate and support. - Cloveious 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once the tilt is corrected and it is cropped, then... maybe. Thelb4 06:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much details and the color is really flat. Can someone touch up the colors in the image? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure about it. Even when I view the full-size picture (and especially in the thumbnail), Qwest Field seems too small in this photo--there's very little observable detail of the building. I think it's a very nice shot (and a perspective I don't think I've seen in a photograph of Seattle) -- I'd be far more willing to consider it as a photograph of the SoDo district (or whatever other names we have for Seattle south of Yesler Way) than as a photograph of the stadium. Of course, that would require an article about that neighborhood that is illustrated by this photo, and I'm not sure if one exists. What does everybody else think? Jwrosenzweig 17:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Drab --Fir0002 07:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Dull. Enochlau 09:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Makes Seattle look nearly as bad as Luton [see below] - MPF 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seattle gets 36 inches of rain per year, Luton (well, London) only 23 inches. So really Seattle is much worse than Luton :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

There's worse things than rain. ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 04:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded an enhanced and cropped image that removes most of the surrounding city, I only have basic graphical editing software so I really can't change the tilt so if someone could fix that for me and address that concern I would appreciate it. Its not like I had much of a choice when I snapped the photo of the angle. As for the drabness of Seattle, I think it turned out remarkably well . I only had one chance to take the picture as me and my friend were escorted out of the tower for being somewhere we were not supposed to be. This was not intended to make Seattle look bad, its just how it looks in that direction. As for buidling details, my camera does not have that great of zoom, and the stadium is a few miles away at least. Compared to the Luton photo below, I think its leaps and bounds beyond that. As for use as a greater seattle photo, Im all for it. --Cloveious 05:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The color has improved tremendously, but the resolution isn't too well. Do you have a higher resolution image? (I can't believe I'm asking, I usually slap people with a wet fish for that) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. uninspiring and way to small. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks a little blurry to me, and the new version especially is far too small. Raven4x4x 10:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

You both missed the point completely, Its not supposed to be a close up, because it was taken from really far away at a unique vantage. There a tons of close ups of the stadium, but very few from far away, showing it in relation to the rest of the Seattle scape. --Cloveious 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The full size picture is only 1300 pixels wide. That is quite small. The detail is poor since the dull day causes low contrast. Likewise for the colour. I would support this picture if there was the added interest of an actual Seahawks game going on on the field and preferably a brighter day, although I realise the later might not be as easy. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed my point completely as well, Cloveious. No matter what the focus of the image is, both seem rather blurry to me, as well as more than a little dull. Raven4x4x 00:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. To dark and looks too miserable to be a featured picture. -- Thorpe ^talk 14:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's really depressing... This picture better represents the field. Hojimachong 02:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 0/7/0 -- Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]